Speaker 1: Allo Podcast Enjoys. It's me James today and I am
Speaker 1: joined again by Mo. They are an educator, attorney, abolitionist,
Speaker 1: and they serve overlapping communities of activists, queer people, and prisoners.
Speaker 1: And we've heard from them before. We have from them
Speaker 1: about June eleventh, but today we're talking about something a
Speaker 1: little different. We're talking about redistributing power in the attorney
Speaker 1: client relationship.
Speaker 2: How are you I'm doing okay. How are you, James?
Speaker 1: I'm existing, I'm fine, I'm thriving. So, yeah, you wanted
Speaker 1: to talk today, he reached out to talk about this.
Speaker 1: I think it's a really interesting topic and it's one
Speaker 1: that like I've become increasingly more aware of in my
Speaker 1: coverage of some sort of different stuff that's various prosecutions,
Speaker 1: I guess in the US, and so I was very
Speaker 1: interested in this. Can you pups like start out by
Speaker 1: explaining what it is exactly that you want you wanted
Speaker 1: to discuss within the attorney client relationship.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, I wanted to talk about building a trusting
Speaker 2: relationship with your attorney where you feel heard and respected
Speaker 2: and understand what you have a right to expect from
Speaker 2: your attorney and feel empowered to push for it. And
Speaker 2: this actually I want to address this both from the
Speaker 2: side of the client, particularly for people who are accused
Speaker 2: of criminal offenses, and I also want to speak a
Speaker 2: little bit to the people who may be representing folks
Speaker 2: who are accused of criminal offenses. For people accused of
Speaker 2: criminal offenses, I want to make sure that anyone in
Speaker 2: that position really understands what you have a right to
Speaker 2: expect from that relationship and to feel really confident asking
Speaker 2: for it. For people who are presenting individuals who are
Speaker 2: politically radical or people who are facing politically motivated prosecutions,
Speaker 2: I want those attorneys to feel safe and ethically empowered
Speaker 2: to practice criminal defense in a way that honors the
Speaker 2: goals of clients who may define their legal interests not
Speaker 2: with respect to only their own personal liability, but with
Speaker 2: respect to a larger set of principles or a larger community. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, that's a very it's a good distinction
Speaker 1: to draw, and I think a good thing for people
Speaker 1: to be thinking about. So why is this sort of
Speaker 1: a topic that's important right now?
Speaker 2: Well, so, I certainly don't want to say that participating
Speaker 2: in protests or in social movements is dangerous, or that
Speaker 2: it's even more dangerous than it has been in the past.
Speaker 2: But I am earned that we might be seeing some
Speaker 2: arrests and charges that are a little more unhinged than
Speaker 2: we've seen in a while. So this isn't new, but
Speaker 2: it may be new to a newer generation of activists.
Speaker 2: And I think some of the community knowledge that was
Speaker 2: cultivated and held twenty or thirty years ago maybe outdated,
Speaker 2: or it might be inaccessible to folks who weren't involved
Speaker 2: back then, or maybe who weren't involved in things that
Speaker 2: were like subject to this level of state repression twenty
Speaker 2: or thirty years ago. So that includes activists, but it
Speaker 2: also includes even very experienced criminal defense attorneys who maybe
Speaker 2: haven't interacted with these kinds of prosecutions, you know, for
Speaker 2: whatever reason, because they were doing a different area of practice,
Speaker 2: maybe because this was happening to the people they were
Speaker 2: representing in the geographic area where they practice, or like
Speaker 2: it wasn't happening at the time that they were practicing.
Speaker 2: So I think that people on both sides of the
Speaker 2: attorney client relationship could benefit from considering that there are
Speaker 2: some maybe important and time tested methods of working to
Speaker 2: mount a collaborative defense in the context of a politically
Speaker 2: motivated prosecution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's just to kind of piggyback off
Speaker 1: what you said. I think it's incredibly valuable. Often, like
Speaker 1: if you've been part of social movements, protest movements, what
Speaker 1: if you want to call it, like for a long time.
Speaker 1: Often we do have to learn things like the institutional
Speaker 1: memory of movements can be quite short. And a lot
Speaker 1: of people have come to the protest movement now who
Speaker 1: were not, like in my own case, like involved in
Speaker 1: sort of the campaign against neoliberal globalization in the early
Speaker 1: two thousands, where we screwed up a lot and learned
Speaker 1: a lot, and some us are still around, and some
Speaker 1: of us are not, sadly yet because part of this
Speaker 1: grew ups that that happened, And like a lot of people, understandably,
Speaker 1: right have been radicalized by having their bodily autonomy attacked,
Speaker 1: by seeing the cops continue to murder people after we
Speaker 1: all got in the streets and got shot with rubb
Speaker 1: bullets to ask them to stop murdering people. Like all
Speaker 1: these things that have understandably made people realize that the
Speaker 1: institutional the institutions haven't really responded to their demands for
Speaker 1: basic human decency, and so yeah, they might find themselves
Speaker 1: out in the streets and government doesn't generally yield power willingly,
Speaker 1: and certainly government right now is doing everything to kind
Speaker 1: of take what little liberty and autonomy folks have and
Speaker 1: slice into that. So it's very reasonable to consider these things.
Speaker 1: So if in this attorney client relationship, what would be
Speaker 1: some areas of friction or of maybe I'm phrasing that wrong,
Speaker 1: but like places where people might want to advocate for
Speaker 1: themselves in order to get an outcome that they desire.
Speaker 2: Right well, so I'll certainly get more into the specifics,
Speaker 2: but I guess, you know, I want to talk about
Speaker 2: this because I am seeing disconnects between people in these relationships,
Speaker 2: and just from where I sit, I feel like I
Speaker 2: can see what's going wrong, and I think that there
Speaker 2: are some straightforward solutions, and I think that having compassion
Speaker 2: each party having compassion for the other can be really
Speaker 2: useful here. So I think like one thing that's happening
Speaker 2: is that attorneys are very much educated to be confident
Speaker 2: unto the point of arrogance, and clients often either don't
Speaker 2: feel authorized to push back on their attorne. These ideas
Speaker 2: or they do an attorneys to then just maybe steamroll them.
Speaker 2: And this is not entirely because attorneys are assholes. I
Speaker 2: think it is because criminal defense attorneys are very often
Speaker 2: taught to minimize their client's' legal liability by any means necessary, well,
Speaker 2: by any lawful means, I guess that's what I should say.
Speaker 2: So for criminal defense attorneys who do not primarily work
Speaker 2: with movement aligned clients, this often means negotiating deals with
Speaker 2: the prosecution that involve cooperating with the state's investigation, handing
Speaker 2: over information on your confederates, putting the client in an
Speaker 2: isolated or adversarial position with their co defendants or co arrestees,
Speaker 2: or doing things that require a person to renounce or
Speaker 2: disparage the people or the communities that they've been involved
Speaker 2: with that they come from. And I think it's true
Speaker 2: that using these kinds of tactics to minimize your own
Speaker 2: legal risk is very often what people charged with criminal
Speaker 2: offenses want. But that sort of approach is often at
Speaker 2: odds with movement values, and it's often totally inconsistent with
Speaker 2: what activists want. Activists want when they are facing charges, So,
Speaker 2: you know, trying to minimize legal consequences is you know,
Speaker 2: certainly always a part of our job, and it's often
Speaker 2: a totally valid thing for lawyers to be doing. But
Speaker 2: the idea that an attorney's job is solely to mitigate
Speaker 2: legal fallout is not actually entirely accurate. What lawyers are
Speaker 2: supposed to do is work with the client to help
Speaker 2: the client articulate their goals, and then the attorney should
Speaker 2: use their expertise and their experience to help the client
Speaker 2: lawfully pursue those goals. And that's what attorneys are supposed
Speaker 2: to do in every case. But I think it often
Speaker 2: becomes most salient when the client's goals are less focused
Speaker 2: on minimizing legal consequences and more focused on, for example,
Speaker 2: highlighting movement messages or acting in solidarity with other people
Speaker 2: who are facing similar charges. So, you know, again, I'm
Speaker 2: talking about this right now in the context of explicitly
Speaker 2: politically motivated prosecution, but frankly, the goals of the client
Speaker 2: have to lead in all cases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. So one thing that we've chatted, that
Speaker 1: little bit that I think maybe folks in some areas
Speaker 1: that I've looked at might not have been aware of.
Speaker 1: It's a concept of a joint defense. Could you explain
Speaker 1: for people who aren't familiar what that looks like.
Speaker 2: So, a joint defense is a way of approach a
Speaker 2: legal case where there are multiple defendants or multiple arrestees.
Speaker 2: Typically in a criminal case, if you have multiple defendants,
Speaker 2: there's sort of a presumption that their interests are at
Speaker 2: odds with each other, that one of them or one
Speaker 2: or more of them is going to get thrown under
Speaker 2: the bus to reduce the punishment of one or more
Speaker 2: of the others. When we're talking about something like a
Speaker 2: mass arrest or an arrest that takes place in the
Speaker 2: context of a social movement where there are multiple defendants,
Speaker 2: very often those people do not see their interests at
Speaker 2: being at odds with each other. Very often they see
Speaker 2: their interests as being unified, and so they want to
Speaker 2: act in solidarity with each other. And there are a
Speaker 2: bunch of reasons for for this that are legal, and
Speaker 2: they're also political and social reasons. Right just in terms
Speaker 2: of people you know, having carrying social relationships, they often
Speaker 2: have commitments to each other and to community. But politically,
Speaker 2: people often feel that their individual legal interests are less
Speaker 2: the important thing that's at stake and that the thing
Speaker 2: that's at stake is actually the health and welfare of
Speaker 2: their social movement, right, and that if they did do
Speaker 2: something like cooperate with the state's investigation, they would actually
Speaker 2: be undermining their larger social movement goals. Legally, and this
Speaker 2: is really important legally, having a joint defense agreement or
Speaker 2: using a joint defense approach allows all of those people
Speaker 2: to work to get other in a privileged context, right
Speaker 2: because they share a unity of interest, and so they
Speaker 2: and their attorneys are able to work on legal strategy together,
Speaker 2: are able to do things like negotiate for non cooperating
Speaker 2: plea agreements as a block, are able to just have
Speaker 2: you know, more eyes on the problem, more people doing
Speaker 2: legal research, more people drafting motions, right, and so in
Speaker 2: a very material sense, this is often a legal strategy.
Speaker 2: Working together actually leads to better legal outcomes for everybody involved.
Speaker 2: So I want to be clear that this approach, both
Speaker 2: you know, using joint defense agreements and using that approach,
Speaker 2: but also just in terms of an individual attorney client relationship,
Speaker 2: acting in a way that's more collaborative is not just cosmetic,
Speaker 2: and it's not just something that makes you feel good.
Speaker 2: If you're someone who's committed to anti authoritarian principles in
Speaker 2: a material way. Approaching the attorney client relationship in a
Speaker 2: way that is calculated to more fully incorporate the goals
Speaker 2: and expertise of the client or of many clients leads
Speaker 2: to better legal outcomes, less punitive outcomes. It leads to
Speaker 2: outcomes that are more closely aligned with client values, and
Speaker 2: it leads to outcomes that are better understood by the client,
Speaker 2: even if those outcomes are bad.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, yeah, at least the part of that process.
Speaker 1: I think a great example of joint defense that we
Speaker 1: discussed would be the j twenty case. Right, if I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken, it was a group of folks who were
Speaker 1: tried together or who amounted to joint defense, I guess,
Speaker 1: against charges that were like fought against some Trump's inauguration.
Speaker 2: It was something they were kettled in DC protesting Trump's inauguration,
Speaker 2: and there were more than two hundred people arrested in
Speaker 2: this mass arrest, and they had a very coordinated defense,
Speaker 2: and they all worked together, and ultimately, I'm going to say,
Speaker 2: in large part because they had so many eyes on
Speaker 2: the problem, they had so many people working on it,
Speaker 2: they were able to really go through discovery, go through
Speaker 2: the state's evidence against them, and find prosecutorial misconduct that
Speaker 2: led to the favorable resolution of those cases. The other
Speaker 2: thing that they did is that they really all refused
Speaker 2: to cooperate with the state's investigation, which limited the harm
Speaker 2: that was done to larger social movements because it meant
Speaker 2: that people were not just rolling over on each other
Speaker 2: and giving the state information to which it was not entitled, right,
Speaker 2: like you know, information about people's relationships or interpersonal conflicts,
Speaker 2: or you know, different kinds of First Amendment protected information
Speaker 2: that the state always wants to have about activists but
Speaker 2: which they actually are not entitled to, but which they
Speaker 2: often end up getting because people who are facing criminal charges,
Speaker 2: you know, sometimes will will offer that up in exchange
Speaker 2: for you know, what they hope will be some lenience.
Speaker 1: I think that was a really good explanation of how
Speaker 1: these these techniques, like you say, they're not just cosmetic.
Speaker 1: It's not posturing or an aesthetic thing. It can result
Speaker 1: in material benefits as well as aligning with your moral desires.
Speaker 1: Can you explain substantively then, how this looks in an
Speaker 1: attorney client relationship, either with an individual or as a
Speaker 1: group now to your joint defense.
Speaker 2: So, you know, like any other relationship that's predicated on
Speaker 2: anti authoritarian principles and shared values of mutual aid and
Speaker 2: self determination, it requires building trust. It requires clear expectations,
Speaker 2: honest communication, respect for each other's expertise and consent. And
Speaker 2: I think, you know, the piece that I think is
Speaker 2: sometimes missing is a real understanding from both parties that
Speaker 2: the accused is the person who has rights and liberty
Speaker 2: on the line. The accused is the person whose goals matter.
Speaker 2: The accused is the person who needs to be able
Speaker 2: to make decisions about things like whether or not to
Speaker 2: accept a plea offer, whether or not to cooperate with
Speaker 2: the state, whether or not to go to trial, and
Speaker 2: whether or not to testify a trial. The attorney is
Speaker 2: presumably the person who has a lot of expertise with
Speaker 2: the law and a lot of experience with the legal system,
Speaker 2: and that is valuable and important. But you know it,
Speaker 2: really I want people who are facing criminal charges to
Speaker 2: understand how much power they ought to feel comfortable exercising
Speaker 2: in this relationship. You know, it is up to the
Speaker 2: accused whether they want their attorney to take part in
Speaker 2: a joint defense strategy. Now we are seeing some stuff.
Speaker 2: I have recently seen some bond conditions imposed on people
Speaker 2: facing criminal charges that appear to me to make it
Speaker 2: very difficult for attorneys to engage in a joint defense
Speaker 2: strategy because sometimes it looks like these co defendants are
Speaker 2: being forbidden from communicating with each other, and so you know,
Speaker 2: that is an interesting wrinkle. But one of the things
Speaker 2: that can mean is that it's up to the accused
Speaker 2: whether they need their attorney to go and argue to
Speaker 2: have that bond condition removed.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, I haven't thought of that, but there are
Speaker 1: definitely especially if you are being proscuted in a group
Speaker 1: or it's alleged to you've conspired to do something illegal,
Speaker 1: then yes, that might be condition of your bond and
Speaker 1: that would make it very hard to do a joint defense.
Speaker 1: But like you said, that's when you should feel empowered
Speaker 1: to ask your attorney to stop that from being a thing.
Speaker 2: Right, Right, the person who's facing charges gets to make
Speaker 2: these decisions, right And I'm saying, well, it's your right
Speaker 2: to decide whether to be involved in a joint defense.
Speaker 2: It's also your right to decide not to be. You
Speaker 2: can absolutely exercise your right to independent counsel, meaning the
Speaker 2: right to have an attorney who is not representing anyone
Speaker 2: else who's involved in your case, like who is not
Speaker 2: in any way connected to a co defendant or co arreste.
Speaker 2: Now this is not to say that your attorney has
Speaker 2: to do everything you want and they're just a yes man,
Speaker 2: and that if they decline to do everything you instruct
Speaker 2: them to do, that you should fire them. You know,
Speaker 2: attorneys do have to operate under certain constraints, and this
Speaker 2: ranges from things like, you know, some law is not
Speaker 2: relevant to this case, right. I've occasionally had clients ask
Speaker 2: me to use the uniform Commercial Code to defend their
Speaker 2: criminal cases, which is not a thing. And you know,
Speaker 2: I've also had clients ask me to like hold have
Speaker 2: a hearing or vile emotion at a time when like,
Speaker 2: procedurally that's not permissible. Right. So you know, you can't
Speaker 2: just do everything that the client says. But look, typically
Speaker 2: the attorney has control over legal strategy because you know,
Speaker 2: as I said, presumably they have expertise with law. But like,
Speaker 2: even if you have decided that you're just going to
Speaker 2: defer to your attorney entirely in matters of strategy, or
Speaker 2: even if you have an attorney who's like not super
Speaker 2: comfortable involving you in strategy to the degree that like
Speaker 2: I might be at a minimum, the attorney needs to
Speaker 2: be able to explain their strategy to you and justify
Speaker 2: it right, so you know, again, there needs to be
Speaker 2: mutual trust and respect for each other, so expertise, they're
Speaker 2: not just a mouthpiece. But if you feel like they're
Speaker 2: genuinely not listening to your goal or not helping you
Speaker 2: to understand what's happening, or they're actively disrespectful, it's really
Speaker 2: important for you to know you can fire your attorney.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the one area of at least where
Speaker 1: I've become aware of this is somebody whose attorney was
Speaker 1: either refusing to or somehow was incapable of gendering them
Speaker 1: in the way that they would like to be gendered.
Speaker 1: And in cases like that, you have the right to
Speaker 1: ask your journey, you're your attorney, to use whatever pronouns
Speaker 1: you prefer, and to be referred to using those pronouns.
Speaker 1: Is that is that right?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? Absolutely. I've certainly heard horror stories, and not just
Speaker 2: and I'll speak to this in a second. I have
Speaker 2: heard horror stories not just about public defenders, but also
Speaker 2: about private counsel being you know, casually racist, being misogynist,
Speaker 2: being transphobic, and you know, being ablest, being really disrespectful
Speaker 2: and classist, particularly around things like transportation and childcare. So,
Speaker 2: you know, if you have an attorney who's just straight
Speaker 2: rude or being disrespectful or like being oppressive in some way,
Speaker 2: I would say, you know, the first step I suppose
Speaker 2: would be to bring it to their attention, and if
Speaker 2: they don't, if they are not responsive, you know, you
Speaker 2: should know that you do have a right to choose
Speaker 2: your own attorney. Now I do understand that there are
Speaker 2: you know, financial issues with just choosing your own attorney,
Speaker 2: but particularly in the context of you know, movement related prosecutions,
Speaker 2: they're often not always, but often resources of their to
Speaker 2: you where people will either work to find you someone
Speaker 2: who can represent you pro bono or you know, will
Speaker 2: raise money. And the other thing is that if you
Speaker 2: have a public defender, you can almost always have appointed
Speaker 2: council from another office if you have some kind of
Speaker 2: irretrievable conflict with your attorney.
Speaker 1: So I think we should talk about public defenders a
Speaker 1: bit because I think sometimes people can think that like
Speaker 1: that they're sort of the worst option, or like the
Speaker 1: bargain basement choice or what have you.
Speaker 2: Went.
Speaker 1: In fact, there are some things you can get with
Speaker 1: a public defender you're very unlikely to get with private
Speaker 1: counsel and absolute Yeah, let's talk about how defenders a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 2: Sure, I would love to. I love public defenders, especially
Speaker 2: in large cities that have what we would call institutional
Speaker 2: public defenders as opposed to you know, everyone takes a
Speaker 2: turn being a public defender for one week out of
Speaker 2: the year. You know, people who want to be public
Speaker 2: defenders do not go into public defense for the big bucks.
Speaker 2: They go into it because they care about defending people
Speaker 2: and keeping people out of jail. And very often, you know,
Speaker 2: the people who are in those positions care very much
Speaker 2: and are really really well trained, and they are not dummies,
Speaker 2: and they will work really hard for you. And I
Speaker 2: do want to push back against the widespread perception that
Speaker 2: public defenders are not good attorneys. They very often are
Speaker 2: the best available option. You are often in very very
Speaker 2: good hands. Now, this isn't to say that you're never
Speaker 2: going to come across a public defender who is rude
Speaker 2: or incompetent in some way, some way. But I would
Speaker 2: really really caution you against assuming that the public defender
Speaker 2: is not a super qualified, committed attorney. The other thing
Speaker 2: is that the offices of the public defender often have
Speaker 2: resources available to them that private counsel do not. You know,
Speaker 2: they have investigators, they have social workers, they have vouchers
Speaker 2: for public transportation, and all of those things are resources
Speaker 2: that I think can be very useful in supporting someone
Speaker 2: who's facing criminal charges. So again, you know, certainly, if
Speaker 2: you're having some kind of interpersonal problem with your public
Speaker 2: defender or any attorney, I want you to feel really
Speaker 2: really empowered to address it and hopefully they're able to,
Speaker 2: you know, respond in a way that's appropriate and explain
Speaker 2: what's going on and you know, why things are happening
Speaker 2: in whatever way they are. But I think it would
Speaker 2: be a mistake to dismiss the public defender as a
Speaker 2: good option.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I agree. I know some public defenders and
Speaker 1: some of them are really great people, very very committed,
Speaker 1: like you say, to keeping folks out of jail, which
Speaker 1: is his goal in a lot of these cases.
Speaker 2: Some of my best friends are public defenders.
Speaker 1: No, they don't and like people obviously will be. I
Speaker 1: guess a lot of people in some who are anti
Speaker 1: authoritarian right are going to be like less than positively
Speaker 1: aligned with any sort of institutions or or feel concerned
Speaker 1: about interacting with people who are part of these institutions,
Speaker 1: but like as far as those people exist within those
Speaker 1: institutions to keep people out of much worse institutions like jails.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people who do public defense
Speaker 2: really have the sense that they're, you know, that their
Speaker 2: mission is harm reduction, right, and they're prepared to operate
Speaker 2: in the confines of what are sometimes sort of leviathan
Speaker 2: bureaucracies in order to achieve that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and maybe a lot of folks would have run
Speaker 1: into it. I certainly know. I'm met a lot of
Speaker 1: public twenties in twenty twenty in the course of covering protest,
Speaker 1: and yeah, it is pretty clear that those folks were
Speaker 1: largely aligned with with good things, with stopping the state
Speaker 1: doing violence to people in all of the different ways
Speaker 1: that it does that. Well, is there anything else that
Speaker 1: you'd like us to get to with respect to these
Speaker 1: relationships people might have with their attorney.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I say this. A lot attorneys have an obligation
Speaker 2: to give their clients their best understanding of what's going on,
Speaker 2: what paths are available to take, and the possible or
Speaker 2: likely outcomes of each of those paths. Right, an attorney
Speaker 2: has an obligation to give you the best possible legal
Speaker 2: advice based on your articulated goals, their understanding of the law,
Speaker 2: their experience, and their clinical judgment, and their clients have
Speaker 2: no corresponding obligation to follow that advice, which can be
Speaker 2: frustrating from where I sit, but it is nevertheless a
Speaker 2: critical attribute of my work that I do not get
Speaker 2: to make big decisions for other people. They get to
Speaker 2: make decisions that I would not make if I were
Speaker 2: allowed to make them, but I'm not. I think that,
Speaker 2: you know, I try to be really transparent with my
Speaker 2: clients about what my ethical commitments are, what I will
Speaker 2: do for them, what I'm not allowed to do for them.
Speaker 2: You know. I try to have those conversations in an
Speaker 2: ongoing way. I don't know that that's common practice. I
Speaker 2: think people are really busy and that's a hard practice
Speaker 2: to maintain. But I want to encourage people who are
Speaker 2: in an attorney client relationship to initiate those conversations right.
Speaker 2: I guess. The only other thing I would say is,
Speaker 2: you know, if you have concerns with your lawyer, address
Speaker 2: those concerns immediately, because the farther into a case you are,
Speaker 2: the harder it is to have that conversation, and the
Speaker 2: farther into a case you are, the harder it is
Speaker 2: to fire your lawyer. You have a right to choose
Speaker 2: your own attorney, but if you're, you know, one week
Speaker 2: out from going to trial, the judge may not allow
Speaker 2: you to do it. Yeah, right, So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess, I just I just wanted to tell anyone
Speaker 2: who's listening that if you are in a situation where
Speaker 2: you have to have a relationship with an attorney, you know,
Speaker 2: it's already probably kind of a bad situation, and you
Speaker 2: should be in a relationship where you feel like your
Speaker 2: lawyer is taking all of your goals seriously, which includes
Speaker 2: not just your straightforward legal goals, but movement support and solidarity.
Speaker 2: And if your lawyer is disrespecting your goals, or disrespecting
Speaker 2: your identities, or disrespecting other kinds of ethical commitments you have,
Speaker 2: you can choose to find a different attorney, and there
Speaker 2: are resources available, and ultimately these decisions are yours, and
Speaker 2: then I had some resources that I wanted to be great.
Speaker 2: So for people who may be accused of criminal offenses,
Speaker 2: there's a really great book called The Tilted Guide to
Speaker 2: Being a Defendant, and if you google that you can
Speaker 2: find a free pdf of it. I would also encourage
Speaker 2: people to reach out to and to become non lawyer
Speaker 2: legal workers, so people who have experience with jail support,
Speaker 2: people who have experience with court support, and with providing
Speaker 2: sort of community support to people who are facing charges.
Speaker 2: If you are somebody who has an ongoing case, having
Speaker 2: a support committee that includes at least one legal worker
Speaker 2: can be just so critical in maintaining morale and in
Speaker 2: feeling supported, and in having the wherewithal to be an
Speaker 2: active participant in your own defense. And we do know
Speaker 2: that when people are active participants in their own defense,
Speaker 2: they have better legal outcomes.
Speaker 1: Yes, I would imagine even if they don't have better
Speaker 1: legal outcomes, they have ones that are easier for them
Speaker 1: to understand. They're more satisfactory because of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, there are a lot of times when
Speaker 2: there are no good options on the table, don't. I
Speaker 2: want to be very clear, being an active participant in
Speaker 2: your own defense or having a really great attorney who
Speaker 2: really listens to you and respects your goals does not
Speaker 2: mean that you are not going to experience punishment or
Speaker 2: state repression. It means that you are going to have
Speaker 2: a better handle on what your options are and why
Speaker 2: things are happening in the way that they are. So
Speaker 2: even if you end up in a situation that involves,
Speaker 2: you know, for example, spending time in carceral confinement, you
Speaker 2: will at least understand how you got there, and you
Speaker 2: will understand what the other possible options were. Right, you know,
Speaker 2: somebody might choose to endure punishment rather than cooperate with
Speaker 2: the state. And even if that is not what most
Speaker 2: people would understand as a better legal outcome, it is
Speaker 2: an outcome that at least was more intentionally pursued than
Speaker 2: the alternative.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, yeah, So where could people find these these
Speaker 1: non loyal legal workers if they wanted to add one,
Speaker 1: or if they know, if they wanted support from one.
Speaker 2: If people wanted to find legal workers in their own community.
Speaker 2: I mean typically they're they're involved with movements. They might
Speaker 2: be associated with your local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.
Speaker 2: They might be the people who are most active in
Speaker 2: jail support. If you really can't find anybody, you can
Speaker 2: call the National Lawyer's Guild Anti Repression Hotline if you
Speaker 2: are actively facing charges. That number is two one two
Speaker 2: six seven nine two eight one one, and we can
Speaker 2: try to connect with you with appropriate legal resources in
Speaker 2: your community. That is one way that I would encourage
Speaker 2: people to reach out if you are facing charges and
Speaker 2: you're having a hard time connecting with legal resources. That
Speaker 2: hotline was mostly for federal federal cases and for federal repression,
Speaker 2: but if you call it, we will do our best
Speaker 2: to connect you with appropriate resources wherever you are. And
Speaker 2: there are also some resources for lawyers that I wanted
Speaker 2: to hyppear, which are, first of all, the National Lawyer's Guild,
Speaker 2: which is a bar association for people who value human
Speaker 2: rights over property rights.
Speaker 1: What a dark situation that this is the subset of
Speaker 1: human beings. Yeah, that the energy are great, some positive
Speaker 1: energy experiences.
Speaker 2: What a dark situation that it hadn't occurred to me?
Speaker 2: How telling that was about lawyers as a whole.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, when a subset of your professor, the subset
Speaker 1: of my profession is equally the dark and terrible people's
Speaker 1: we just have to try and be better. I guess.
Speaker 2: The other thing that is available for attorneys who are
Speaker 2: interested is there's a book put out by the same
Speaker 2: people who wrote The Tilted Guide to Being a Defendant
Speaker 2: for attorneys, and it's called Representing Radicals. And that is
Speaker 2: I think available through AK Press.
Speaker 1: You should buy it from a cap Press directly and
Speaker 1: not from Jeffrey Bezos in any way.
Speaker 2: Thank you. But and the other thing is there are
Speaker 2: a lot of attorneys around the country who are more
Speaker 2: than happy to consult, to act as mentors, to share motions,
Speaker 2: to share legal research. The people who work in movement
Speaker 2: spaces as lawyers, are typically always prepared to share our
Speaker 2: experience and resources because we have a stake and other
Speaker 2: people becoming really good at this. You know. You know,
Speaker 2: my goal is to have fewer clients. So if anyone
Speaker 2: is interested in helping me to achieve that goal, either
Speaker 2: by going to law school or by taking some of
Speaker 2: my clients or taking some of the people who might
Speaker 2: otherwise be my clients, please I would be delighted to
Speaker 2: shepherd you into movement defense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be great. If we have any little
Speaker 1: like budding movement defenders, how would they be able to
Speaker 1: find you.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, if you would like to find me on
Speaker 2: the internet, please don't. But I do have a website
Speaker 2: that you can find if you google me. It is
Speaker 2: mo at Law, and I am pretty available if you
Speaker 2: reach out to me by email and have questions. Right,
Speaker 2: But generally when I come on these things, the only
Speaker 2: thing I have to plug is the concept of not
Speaker 2: talking to cops.
Speaker 1: I wanted to do an episode on that. Maybe we'll
Speaker 1: do it one day. I think we should do an
Speaker 1: expanded how to not talk to Cops guide the.
Speaker 2: I guess it's not just the concept of not talking
Speaker 2: to cops, it's actually the practice of not talking to cops.
Speaker 1: And certainly, like it's somebody myself here lives on the
Speaker 1: border and has to deal with all kinds of different
Speaker 1: jurisdictions of cops on an almost daily basis, just in
Speaker 1: the travel I need to do to live my life.
Speaker 1: It can be complicated and scary, and if you're not
Speaker 1: a citizen, it becomes even more complicated and scary. So,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, that's the thing we should discuss.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I would like to say that apart from some
Speaker 2: very very specific exceptions that involve being at borders or
Speaker 2: being subpoenaed to a federal granjurie. You never have an
Speaker 2: obligation to talk to cops, to answer their questions, or
Speaker 2: to cooperate with their investigations. That doesn't mean you can
Speaker 2: obstruct their investigations, but you absolutely have no affirmative obligation
Speaker 2: to speak to police officers. And if they ask you,
Speaker 2: if they are trying to interrogate you or ask you questions,
Speaker 2: you can say I am going to remain silent and
Speaker 2: I want to speak to a lawyer. And if the
Speaker 2: FEDS show up at your house or call you on
Speaker 2: the phone, or come to your office or your place
Speaker 2: of work, you can say, I am represented by counsel.
Speaker 2: Please leave your name and number and my lawyer will
Speaker 2: call you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, it's good to have scripts. I want to Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we should. We should break down and detail
Speaker 1: some more scenarios. We should do it in another episode
Speaker 1: because it'll be maybe a bit longer. Yes, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I think folks, maybe I think everyone understands the concept,
Speaker 1: but the practice and there's that by tea given theirs.
Speaker 2: Great. Yeah, And if you don't yet have an attorney
Speaker 2: and you feel uncomfortable saying I'm represented by counsel. You
Speaker 2: can just say, please leave your name and number and
Speaker 2: my lawyer will call you. And then you can call
Speaker 2: the National Lawyers Killed Anti Federal Repression Hotline at two
Speaker 2: and two six seven nine two eight one one and
Speaker 2: have a privileged conversation about your rights, risks, and responsibilities
Speaker 2: and we can connect you with an attorney in your area.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That is excellent, actionable advice. Yeah, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for giving us so much of your time and help. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. I'm sure everyone else does too.
Speaker 2: Not at all, it's my pleasure. I am always available
Speaker 2: to come and talk to you about various the various
Speaker 2: rights of people accused of criminal offenses. Usually I am
Speaker 2: talking about your rights with respect to the state, but
Speaker 2: it has become really evident that I needed to talk
Speaker 2: about people's rights with respect to their own attorneys.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's empowering for people to hear this. So I'm
Speaker 1: glad we talked about it me too. It could happen
Speaker 1: here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 2: cool zonemedia dot com.
Speaker 1: Or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever.
Speaker 2: You listen to podcasts, you can find sources for It
Speaker 2: could happen here, Updated monthly at cool zonemedia dot com
Speaker 2: slash sources. Thanks for listening.