Getting Legal Representation When Charged With a Crime

While most defendants can, in theory, represent themselves, it's almost always a bad idea. Mounting a criminal defense requires a thorough knowledge of many very detailed laws, and knowing how judges have interpreted these rules in past cases. It's just as important to understand the human factor: how cases like yours are handled in your courthouse by the judges, prosecutors, and police who make discretionary decisions all the time. Only someone well-versed in the law and the local legal scene can adequately assess the strengths and weaknesses of a case and its chances in court or at the negotiating table.

Most people charged with a crime will qualify for the services of a court-appointed attorney (not because the system is so generous, but because demographically, most defendants are too poor to hire their own attorney). Those who do not qualify for appointed counsel will need to find and hire a lawyer. Follow the links below for information on the varying options for representation, and get some practical advice on making the choice.

Court-Appointed Attorneys

Most criminal defendants are represented by court-appointed lawyers who are paid by the government. Paradoxically, the biggest reason that most defendants are represented by lawyers in criminal cases is that most defendants can’t afford to hire their own private defense attorneys. When defendants are considered to be legally indigent—as most are—the court is constitutionally required to provide them with legal representation at government expense if jail or prison is a possible outcome of the case.

Do I Need a Lawyer When I'm Charged with a Crime?

Defendants charged with crimes are almost always best served by obtaining a lawyer. In fact, most criminal defendants are represented by a lawyer, especially when jail or a prison sentence is a possible result. It is very difficult for a person to competently handle his or her own criminal case. While there are no firm statistics on how many people choose to represent themselves in criminal cases, estimates range well below 1%.

You Can't Find Everything You Need in a Book

Self-representation is made difficult in part by the typical gulf between paper and practice in criminal cases. In books you can find laws that define crimes, fix punishments for their violation, and mandate courtroom procedures. Take the time and trouble to read these books, defendants might think, and they’ll understand the system. Alas, the practice of criminal law can’t be understood by reading books alone, even this one. To experienced criminal defense attorneys, the criminal law appears much the same as a droplet of water appears to a biologist under a microscope—a teeming world with life forms and molecules interacting unpredictably.

The Power of the Prosecutor

For example, prosecutorial discretion—the power of prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges, and what charges to file— determines much of what actually happens in the criminal courts. The particular prosecutor who has the power to make decisions, and when those decisions are made, can greatly affect the outcome of a case. An act that looks on paper to constitute one specific crime can be recast as a variety of other crimes, some more and others less serious. What in a statute book appears to be a fixed sentence for a particular crime can be negotiated into a variety of alternatives.

Community Pressures

No one should underestimate the role that community pressures, values, and politics plays in many criminal cases. Judges must stand for re-election, prosecutors want to be successful, and police expect that the crime reports they bring to the prosecutor will result in charged cases. The public may be fired up about certain crimes and expect the system to "get tough" on people arrested for them. In a perfect world, the system would be immune from such pressures, but this is simply not what happens. Only someone who's familiar with the local scene can know how these pressures might affect your case, and how to work within them.

In other words, the world of criminal law is vast, hidden, and shifting, and defendants enter it alone at their peril. At the very least, most self-represented defendants should arrange for a lawyer to be a legal coach and consult with their coaches as needed.

What Will an Attorney Do for Me?

The truth is, no matter how smart or well educated you are, the criminal justice system makes it virtually impossible to do a competent job of representing yourself. Each criminal case is unique, and only a specialist who is experienced in assessing the particulars of a case—and in dealing with the many variables that come up in every case—can provide the type of representation that every criminal defendant needs to receive if justice is to be done.

Criminal defense lawyers do much more than simply question witnesses in court. For example, defense lawyers:

• Negotiate “deals” with prosecutors, often arranging for reduced charges and lesser sentences. By contrast, prosecutors may be uncooperative with self-represented defendants.
• Formulate sentencing programs tailored to a client’s specific needs, often helping defendants avoid future brushes with the criminal justice system.
• Help defendants cope with the feelings of fear, embarrassment, reduced self-esteem, and anxiety that criminal charges tend to produce in many people.
• Provide defendants with a reality check—a knowledgeable, objective perspective on their situation and what is likely to happen should their cases go to trial. This perspective is vital for defendants trying to decide whether to accept a prosecutor’s offered plea bargain.
• Are familiar with important legal rules that people representing themselves would find almost impossible to locate on their own, because many criminal law rules are hidden away in court interpretations of federal and state statutes and constitutions. For example, understanding what may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure often requires familiarity with a vast array of state and federal appellate court opinions.
• Are familiar with local court customs and procedures that are not written down anywhere. For example, a defense lawyer may know which prosecutor has the real authority to settle a case and what kinds of arguments are likely to appeal to that prosecutor.
• Understand the possible hidden costs of pleading guilty that a self-repre­sented person might never think about.
• Spend time on a case that a defendant cannot afford to spend. Defendants who can afford to hire a lawyer usually have jobs, and therefore lack the time (and energy) to devote to such time-consuming activities as gathering and examining documents, doing legal research, and talking to witnesses.
• Gather information from prosecution witnesses. Witnesses often fear people accused of crimes and therefore refuse to speak to people representing themselves. Witnesses are more likely to talk to defense attorneys or their investigators.
• Hire and manage investigators. Investigators may be able to believably impeach (contradict) prosecution witnesses who embellish their stories at trial. By contrast, it is far less effective for a defendant to testify that “the prosecution witness told me something different before trial.”

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

The Public Defender

Most criminal defendants are legally indigent and can’t afford to pay for an attorney. On the other hand, the state can’t legally prosecute indigents unless it provides them with an attorney. To satisfy this requirement, many states have set up public defender offices. Typically, each local office has a chief public defender (who may be either elected or appointed) and a number of assistant public defenders (“P.D.s”). P.D.s are fully licensed lawyers whose sole job is to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases. Because they typically appear in the same courts on a daily basis, P.D.s can gain a lot of experience in a short period of time.

The P.D. Fights for You

The P.D. is paid by the government -- the same entity that includes the judge, prosecutor, police, and court personnel. As a result, defendants sometimes fear that a P.D. will be in the same camp, loyalty-wise, and won't be "on my side." Or, because P.D.s work so closely with the judges and prosecutors, clients think they will pull punches in order to stay friendly with the group.

Rarely are such fears justified. The fact that the P.D. gets a check from the same source as the prosecutor and judge doesn't mean that the P.D. needs to curry favor with them, because neither the judge nor the prosecutor makes hiring decisions about that lawyer. As for wanting to be personally liked, a good P.D. can maintain cordial relationships with judges and prosecutors while vigorously representing his clients’ interests. Besides, most private attorneys—not just P.D.s—have regular contacts with judges and prosecutors.

How Many P.D.s Will Represent Me?

Some P.D. offices assign the same P.D. to a defendant’s case from beginning to end (in legal lingo, this is known as "vertical representation"). In other P.D. offices, the P.D.s are specialized. One P.D. may handle arraignments, another settlement con­ferences, another trials, and so forth ("horizontal representation"). With horizontal representation, a single defendant may be represented by a number of P.D.s as a case moves from beginning to end.

This approach can sometimes result in defendants feeling lost in the shuffle, especially if there isn’t close communication between the different P.D.s as the case moves from one phase to the next. In a good P.D. office, each attorney makes clear and thorough notes in the client's file every time an attorney deals with the case or appears in court on behalf of the client. The next attorney to handle the case studies the file in order to be up to speed on how the case is progressing.

One advantage of horizontal representation is that the more serious the step, the more senior (and experienced) the attorney who handles it. For example, relatively new lawyers might be assigned to do bail motions and arraignments, but senior attorneys will take trials and sentencing hearings. That way, every defendant gets the advantage of experienced representation.

Choosing Your P.D. -- Not

In communities served by public defender offices, a judge simply appoints the public defender’s office to represent indigent defendants. The individual P.D. who actually provides the representation is normally the P.D. who happens to be assigned to the courtroom in which a defendant’s case is heard. Or, in large cities especially whose offices practice horizontal representation, the client gets the services of the P.D. who is assigned to each stage of the case (arraignment, bail, preliminary hearings, motions, trials, and so on).

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

Court-Appointed "Panel" Attorneys

A "panel attorney" is a lawyer who signs-up with the court to handle indigent cases when the public defender's office cannot represent the client. In some counties, where there is no public defender office, all indigent defense work is handled by panel attorneys. Being a panel attorney is a good way to have a steady stream of work, and payment (from the courts) is reliable.

When Panel Attorneys Are Appointed

In counties that have public defender offices, panel attorneys are appointed when a judge decides that there's a "conflict of interest" that prevents representation by the P.D. In counties without P.D. offices, panel attorneys are appointed when the judge determines that the defendant meets the requirements for indigency.

A P.D. would not be allowed to represent a defendant because of a conflict of interest in the following situations:

When two defendants are charged with jointly committing a crime. Even if both are indigent, the public defender’s office cannot represent both because each defendant may try to point the finger at the other as being more to blame.

When the victim is a former public defender client. In this situation, the P.D. would have two conflicting duties: (1) to vigorously represent the current client’s interests, and (2) to not disclose any information learned from the ­previous client in confidence. To fulfill the duty of vigorous representation in the current case, the P.D. would have to use any information known about the victim that might put the victim’s testimony in doubt. Yet this could easily violate the duty owed by the P.D. to the previous client (the victim in the present case) to not use that informa­tion.

The same conflict arises when one of the prosecution's witnesses is a former public defender client.

In these situations, public ­defender offices sometimes try to avoid conflict of ­interest problems by following a “don’t peek” policy. Under this policy, a P.D. stays on a case by promising not to look in the P.D. office’s files to dig up nasty but confidential information against a former client. Judges have an economic incentive to accept such promises: It’s almost always cheaper to appoint a second P.D. than a private panel attorney. However, many counties won't practice "don't peek," realizing that it's one thing to keep the file shut, but another to expect people to keep memories at bay.

How Good is My Panel Attorney Likely to Be?

The competence of your panel attorney, like that of his public defender counterpart, will depend on how experienced he is, and how many other lawyers in his position are vying to be placed on the panel. In areas where many criminal defense lawyers are available for work, getting onto the panel is quite desirable, and courts can be very choosy about whom they select. On the other hand, in areas with a dearth of lawyers, the courts may have few choices and may end up with less experienced attorneys. Often, panels are made up of former public defenders who have left the government office to go into private practice.

Getting a Second Opinion

Defendants who think their court-appointed attorneys are not representing them adequately should consider checking the court-appointed lawyer’s advice with a private defense attorney. Even an indigent defendant may be able to pay for a short second opinion consultation with a private defense attorney. Or, a defendant may have friends who can check with an attorney who has represented them.

Defendants often talk to other defendants facing similar charges to find out if their attorneys have provided different advice. Be very careful if you do this: Remember that because each case is unique, advice for different defendants—even those charged with the same crime—may vary greatly and still be valid. Also remember that the conversation will not be confidential and can be disclosed to the prosecution. Many a defendant has been undone by the testimony of a jailhouse neighbor who was consulted for legal advice.

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

Private Defense Attorneys

Defendants who do not qualify for the public defender or panel attorney will need to find and hire their own. Learn how to conduct a thoughtful search, and how private attorneys bill for their services.

What to Look for in a Private Defense Attorney

The attorney you're looking for will probably not be the same person who handled your will, or helped you buy a house, or whom you aunt used when she was involved in a car accident. These all were civil attorneys, whereas you want someone who specializes in criminal law. (In small town, however, you may have no choice but to hire someone who practices in both areanas.) Civil versus Criminal Attorneys

Private criminal defense lawyers tend to practice either on their own or in small partnerships, and in a specific geographical setting. By contrast, attorneys who handle civil cases tend to congregate in large corporate law firms with branch offices in many cities.

While personality differences between civil and criminal attorneys may account for some of the variance, the biggest factor is the differing nature of the work:

Big-firm civil attorneys tend to repre­sent companies who do business all over the country or the world. Criminal defense lawyers represent individuals whose problems are usually quite local. Companies represented by big-firm civil lawyers have a continual need for legal advice and representation. Individual criminal defendants tend to be one-shot players with nonrecurring or sporadic legal needs.

The typical private defense attorney has had several years of experience working for the government before going into private practice, either as a prosecutor (often, a district attorney or city attorney) or as a public defender.

The Local Advantage

A defendant should try to hire an attorney with experience in the courthouse where the defendant’s case is pending. Though the same laws may be in effect throughout a state, procedures vary from one courthouse to another. For example, the D.A. in one county may have a no-plea-bargaining policy with respect to a certain offense, while the D.A. in a neighboring county may have no such policy. Or, defense attorneys in one county may know which prosecutors are more likely to plead right before trial, as against those who will negotiate in advance. Local attorneys also know the police officers and how they perform in court before juries. Defendants should prefer attorneys who have experience with local procedures and personnel.

Experience with the Crimes Charged

A defendant should also try to find an attorney who has represented defendants charged with the same or very similar offenses. Modern criminal law is so complex that many lawyers specialize in particular types of offenses. For example, one may specialize in drunk driving, another in drug offenses, and another in white-collar crimes (generally referring to nonviolent, money-related crimes, such as tax fraud or embezzlement).

It is perfectly appropriate for a defendant to inquire during the initial consultation about the attorney’s experience. A defendant should not hire a lawyer who refuses to specifically discuss her experience or gives vague, unrevealing answers.

EXAMPLE: Zach Michaels is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (drunk driving). Zach might ask the lawyer he’s thinking of retaining such questions as:

• “Have you represented people who have been charged with drunk driving?”
• “What percentage of your practice involves representing people charged with drunk driving?”
• “Are you certified as a specialist in drunk driving cases?” (Some states allow attorneys to qualify as specialists in specific areas of practice; others do not.)
• “What percentage of your practice involves appearing in the court that my case will be assigned to?”

Because most private lawyers have years of criminal law experience either as a prosecutor or as a P.D. before going into private practice, defendants should not have to sacrifice quality to find attorneys who have local experience with their types of cases.

The Personal Factor

A defendant’s lawyer speaks for the defendant. No matter how highly recom­mended a lawyer may be, it is also important that the lawyer be someone with whom the defendant is personally comfortable. The best attorney-client relationships are those in which clients are full partners in the decision-making process, and defendants should try to hire lawyers who see them as partners, not as case files.

Thus, defendants should ask themselves questions such as these when considering whether to hire a particular lawyer:

• “Does the attorney seem to be ­someone I can work with and talk openly to?”
• “Does the attorney explain things in a way that I can understand?”
• “Does the lawyer show personal concern and a genuine desire to want to help?”
• “Do the lawyer’s concerns extend to my overall personal situation, rather than just the crime with which I’m charged?”
• “Does the lawyer appear to be a person who will engender trust in prosecutors, judges, and, if necessary, jurors?”

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

Finding a Private Defense Attorney

Many defendants facing criminal charges are not in custody at the time they seek to hire an attorney. Either the police issue them a citation and a court date and never take them to jail, or they bail out of jail on their own, without first hiring an attorney.

Finding a Lawyer When You're in Jail

It may be difficult to find and hire a com­petent lawyer while in jail. The atmosphere is usually psychologically oppressive, a defendant can’t comparison-shop, and the police and other defendants are notoriously poor judges of lawyers’ competence. There's a monetary constraint, too: Criminal defense lawyers often want the bulk of their money up front, which means that you will have to come up with some cash in fairly short order. Because jailed defendants usually have no money, they have to find family members or friends who will put up the money.

If an arrested suspect has previously been satisfactorily represented by a criminal defense lawyer, that is usually the lawyer whom the suspect should call. But how should other arrested suspects proceed? Probably the most fruitful approach is to get a referral from one or more of the following sources:

Civil practitioners. Defendants who know an attorney in civil practice can ask that attorney to recommend a criminal defense lawyer. (Some civil practitioners, of course, are also competent to represent clients in criminal matters, at least for the limited purpose of arranging for release from jail following an arrest.)

Family members or friends. These people may either know of a criminal defense lawyer or at least have the time to pursue additional reference sources, such as family clergy, doctors, or other professionals.

Bail bond sellers. Bondsmen are usually in regular contact with private defense lawyers.

Finding a Lawyer When You're Not in Custody

Like defendants who are in custody, defendants who are not in jail can seek referrals from civil lawyers, friends and relatives, and bail bond sellers. However, nonjailed defendants have additional options. The additional sources include:

A local bar association’s lawyer referral panel. Attorneys are usually recom­mended according to their experience and the type and seriousness of a criminal charge.

Martindale-Hubbell. Martindale-Hubbell publications identify lawyers according to their specialties in specific geographic areas, and even rate the lawyers for competency. Defendants can either try to find attorneys by looking in Martindale-Hubbell, or check references on attorneys who have been recommended to them. All law libraries have Martindale-Hubbell books; many general public libraries have them as well. Defendants who have access to the Internet will also find Martindale-Hubbell online

.

Courthouse visits. Defendants can visit a local courthouse and sit through a few criminal hearings. If a particular lawyer impresses a defendant, the defendant can ask for that lawyer’s card (after the hearing has concluded) and then call for an appointment.

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

Representing Yourself in a Criminal Case

It's rarely a good idea to represent yourself in a criminal case, especially when jail time or prison is a possibility if you lose. In a few situations, however, it may make sense to be your own lawyer.

Your Right to Represent Yourself

Defendants cannot represent themselves unless a judge determines that they are competent to do so. The community as a whole has an interest in achieving justice. A trial in which an incompetent defendant self-represents does not constitute a fair trial.

Competency to Represent Yourself

The case that established that defendants have a right to represent themselves was Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975. The Faretta case said that a judge must allow self-representation if a defendant is competent to understand and participate in the court proceedings.

To determine competence, the judge often weighs factors such as:

• the defendant’s age
• the defendant’s level of education
• the defendant’s familiarity with English, and
• the seriousness of the crime with which the defendant is charged.

No single factor determines the result, and a defendant doesn’t need the legal skills of a professional lawyer to qualify for self-representation. As long as a defendant is competent, knowingly gives up the right to an attorney, and understands court proceedings, the defendant is entitled to self-represent.

Example: Ella Mental is charged with burglary. Ella has only a grade school education, and she has been in and out of mental institutions for much of her life. Ella tells the judge that she wants to represent herself in the burglary case. The judge allows Ella to do so, on the ground that Ella has been convicted of various crimes three times in the past and is thus familiar enough with criminal law to represent herself. Ella goes to trial, and her questions to prosecution witnesses are garbled and for the most part ruled improper by the judge. Ella is convicted. The judge should not have allowed Ella to represent herself. The mere fact that Ella has three prior convictions does not demonstrate that she is capable of knowingly giving up her right to an attorney and representing herself. In view of her limited education, her history of mental problems, and her inability to participate meaningfully in the trial, the judge should have ignored Ella’s wishes and appointed a lawyer to represent her.

Example: Lexi Khan is charged with assault and battery, and wants to repre­sent herself. Lexi speaks English, but English is her second language and she has trouble understanding some words. She also has trouble reading a law book that the judge asks her to read. In the arraignment court, Lexi refused to enter a plea, and repeatedly said that the whole system is biased and that she wanted nothing to do with it. Over Lexi’s objection, the judge appoints an attorney to represent her. Taking all the circumstances into account, the judge properly exercised discretion when denying Lexi’s request for self-representation. In view of Lexi’s language difficulties and refusal to participate in the arraignment proceedings, Lexi is not capable of representing herself at trial in a meaningful way.

Example: Dane Gerous is charged with aggravated sexual assault, and asks to represent himself. The judge’s questioning reveals that Dane did not finish high school,and has no previous legal experience. However, Dane accurately summarizes the charge that he is facing. Also, when the judge reads a statute to Dane, he is able to explain what it means in his own words. The judge should allow Dane to represent himself. The charge is serious, and the judge may believe that Dane would be better off with a lawyer. However, Dane has demonstrated sufficient ability to understand and participate in the proceedings, and thus he has a right to represent himself.

Competent to Stand Trial

Whether a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial is a different issue. A time-honored principle in American law holds that we should not subject someone to trial who lacks the capacity

to understand the nature and purpose of the legal proceedings against him, to consult with his lawyer, or to help in the preparation of his defense. Someone who is competent to stand trial is oriented as to time and place, and has a reasonable degree of rational understanding. (18 U.S.C.A. § 4241.)

A judge has the power to decide that a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial, yet not competent enough to represent himself (Indiana v. Edwards, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2008).

Is Self-Representation Ever a Good Idea?

As a general rule, the less severe the charged crime, the more sensible self-representation may be. Defendants charged with minor traffic offenses should rarely hire an attorney; defendants charged with serious misdemeanors and felonies should rarely be without one.

The most difficult decisions involve less serious misdemeanors such as drunk driving, possession of small amounts of drugs, shoplifting, and the like. Hiring an attorney in these situations may make sense because jail time and a fine are possibilities, and convictions may carry hidden costs (for example, more severe punishment for a second conviction). On the other hand, first-time offenders are not usually sentenced to jail, and judges and prosecutors often offer standard deals to all defendants for these types of offenses, whether or not they are represented by counsel.

What You Need to Learn

The most critical piece of information that defendants should try to learn before deciding whether to hire an attorney is what the likely—rather than possible—punishment would be upon conviction. Often the likely punishment for an offense is far less than the maximum possible punishment set out in the law.

Example: A law states that the offense of shooting a deer out of season is punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months imprisonment. However, the actual punishment routinely meted out for a first offense may be a $50 fine and an administrative suspension of the offender’s hunting permit. Comparing the likely sentence to the costs of an attorney, the defendant may choose self-representation.

Example: Jay Walker is charged with drunk driving. According to the statute, upon conviction Jay may lose his license for up to a year, be sent to county jail for up to six months, and have to pay a $2,000 fine. Jay learns that the judge does not send first offenders like Jay (whose blood alcohol reading was just barely over the limit) to jail. Instead, the judge routinely imposes a fine of $400 and sends offenders to driving school. Balancing the likely consequences of a conviction in this judge’s court against the cost of an attorney (and the substantial possibility that a conviction will result anyway), Jay decides to plead guilty without hiring an attorney.

Of course, the key is to learn what, exactly, the local custom might be for cases like yours. This is classic "insider information," not available on websites or books. Only someone who works in the system is likely to know what cases like yours will settle for, or what sentences various judges are likely to give defendants who lose at trial. To learn this information, you might need to consult with a lawyer who practices in your area and who handles cases like yours.

When Self-Representation Probably Isn't a Good Idea

Defendants seriously considering repre­senting themselves should probably pay for or accept free legal representation (if it’s available) when one or more of the following factors exists:

• Conviction is likely to result in a prison sentence.
• The case is likely to go to trial.
• The defendant has a prior criminal record.
• The defendant is in custody and as a result may not have access to a law library.
• The defendant is anxious and feels overwhelmed about being charged with a crime.

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

Working with a Lawyer While Representing Yourself

Defendants considering self-representation might seek out an attorney willing to serve as a legal coach. The idea of a legal coach is to combine an attorney’s knowledge with the defendant’s time. Because a defendant pays only for the periodic use of the attorney’s time, the cost of a legal coach can be far less than turning a case over to a private attorney.

Here are some of the ways a legal coach can help a self-represented defendant:

• A legal coach can advise a defendant to make a pretrial motion and even draft the motion; the defendant can go to court and argue the motion.
• A legal coach can advise a defendant what documents to look for and where they might be found; the defendant can conduct the actual document search.
• A legal coach can advise a defendant on a variety of strategies, such as whether to accept a prosecutor’s plea offer.

If a defendant wants an attorney to handle a trial at the last minute, the legal coach who’s been working with the defendant can probably step in and take over without unnecessary delay.

Difficulty Finding a Coach

You may find it very difficult to get a lawyer to act as your coach. Some attorneys are worried about their liability if they give wrong advice based on incomplete information; others do not want to be involved with a case unless they are in control of it. Therefore, it may make sense for a defendant thinking about self-representation to line up a legal coach before making the final decision to self-represent. As a general rule, the greater the effort you have made to understand your case and learn some basics of criminal law, the more likely it is that an attorney will agree to serve as your law coach.

Hiring a Lawyer After Self-Representing Yourself

Just as defendants can generally substitute one attorney for another, defendants representing themselves can substitute an attorney for themselves. Many defendants choose to represent themselves in the hope of working out a quick deal with a prosecutor, and then hire an attorney if a speedy resolution is not possible.

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.