A Comparative Analysis of Indigent Defense: Lawyers and Attorneys

This report examines the efficacy of lawyers and attorneys in indigent defense, focusing on the United States legal system. It explores the constitutional right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and the distinction between publicly-funded lawyers (public defenders) and private attorneys. The report references the Gideon v. Wainwright case and Argersinger v. Hamlin case, highlighting the court's rulings on the appointment of counsel for indigent offenders. It analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Justice, comparing conviction and incarceration rates for defendants represented by public defenders versus private attorneys. The report concludes that while there is no significant difference in conviction rates, public defenders often have higher percentages of clients sentenced to incarceration. The report also mentions the advantages of private attorneys, such as client choice and potentially lower caseloads, while acknowledging the higher representation of black people by public defenders. The analysis is based on the provided assignment brief that focuses on a special report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the data regarding the legal representation of defendants in criminal cases.

Running head: INDEGENT DEFENSE
EFFICACY OF LAWYERS & ATTORNEYS
Name of the student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1INDEGENT DEFENSE
In the United States, all criminal suspects are entitled to get a lawyer. This right has been
provided by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. However, a rising delusion is that this
right makes everyone in the US to get open legal services as well1. The reality is much tougher
than that. If an individual charged with a crime, it becomes very confusing for that person to
select between a publicly-funded lawyer and a private attorney. In Gideon vs. Wainwright
[1963] 372 US 335 case the court ruled that the sixth amendment requires the appointment of
lawyers for indigent offenders in proceedings of State courts.
A public defender is appointed by courts only for those offenders whose financial position
is not good. The responsibility of a public defender is to ensure a just trial. If an offender cannot
appoint a private attorney and prove that his/her financial position is not adequate, the court then
appoints a public defender after proper inquiry. To support this view, in Argersinger vs. Hamlin
[1972] 407 US 25 case he court held that an indigent offender cannot be prosecuted even for a
heinous crime unless a public defender appointed by the court2.
On the other hand, a private attorney is one who usually practices in some particular areas
of law on behalf of a large or small firm. A private attorney is appointed either by the offender
himself/herself or by the family members of the offender. Sometimes, there arises a question
regarding the effectiveness of a private attorney and a publicly-funded lawyer.
In the US, indigent defense requires the use of public defenders to defend suspects who
cannot afford private attorneys. As per a Special Report published by the US Department of
Justice, 66 percent defendants in Federal courts and 82 percent defendants in large State courts
were represented by the publicly-funded lawyers from the year between 1996 and 19983.
The report also stated that, whether represented by the public defender or private attorneys
the rate of criminal conviction was the same in both Federal and large State courts. Irrespective
of kind of prosecutor, roughly nine in ten Federal offenders and three in four State offenders in
seventy-five countries were held guilty. 88 percent of publicly funded councils and 77 percent of
private lawyers were found to be guilty and received prison terms or jail sentences in Federal
Courts. Whereas, 71 percent of publicly funded councils and 54 percent of private lawyers were
found to be guilty and received incarceration sentences in large State Courts4.
Even there is no difference between the effectiveness of publicly-funded lawyers and
private attorneys, many authors favor private attorneys because an offender can choose a private
attorney of his/her choice who has specialization on a specific law related to his case after proper
communication. Moreover, a private attorney has a lesser caseload in comparison to a public
defender. Generally, the offenders of white-collar crime prefer to appoint private attorneys. In
the US, public defenders appointed by the courts more for black people in comparison to white
people5.
1 Rappaport, John. "The Structural Function of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of Choice." (2017) The
Supreme Court Review 2016.1: 117-156.
2 Burch, Elizabeth Chamblee. "Publicly Funded Objectors." (2018) Theoretical Inquiries in Law 19.1: 47-68.
3 Bjs.Gov, 2020
4 Bjs.Gov, 2020
5 Maclean, Mavis, and John Eekelaar. Lawyers and mediators: The brave new world of services for separating
families. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016).

2INDEGENT DEFENSE
Reference
Bjs.Gov, 2020, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf.
Burch, Elizabeth Chamblee. "Publicly Funded Objectors." (2018) Theoretical Inquiries in
Law 19.1: 47-68.
Maclean, Mavis, and John Eekelaar. Lawyers and mediators: The brave new world of services
for separating families. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016).
Rappaport, John. "The Structural Function of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel of
Choice." (2017) The Supreme Court Review 2016.1: 117-156.