90% of Criminal Cases End in Pleas, and 99% of Inmates Had Attorneys—What’s Going Wrong?

Dear Accused,

The dominance of plea agreements in the legal system suggests attorneys may prioritize efficiency over justice. Both public defenders and private attorneys face pressures to resolve cases quickly through plea bargains rather than trials. This poses challenges for defendants, especially when financial resources don’t guarantee favorable outcomes, as seen in high-profile cases like Donald Trump, R. Kelly, Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein.

The Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Volume 7, Section 4, says that a lawyer’s main responsibility is to the courts and the public, not just to their client. According to Rule 1.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers must work diligently and quickly. These rules push lawyers to resolve cases efficiently, which often means they prefer settling cases instead of going to trial.

Dr. William Washington, a business owner and clinician, was charged as part of a healthcare fraud conspiracy involving several other clinicians and dozens of NBA players. His case, which spanned years, garnered national media attention. Shortly after his arraignment, I began working with Dr. Washington daily, helping him manage both the legal crisis and his business. We partnered to ensure that his medical clinic continued to thrive despite the ongoing legal proceedings.

Throughout the case, Dr. Washington retained several attorneys, including four at various stages, but none fully represented his narrative. They all encouraged him to accept a plea deal, citing the risks of going to trial, much like what occurs in many SDNY cases. However, Dr. Washington chose to proceed to trial pro se, believing that this was the only way to fully present his defense and challenge the prosecution’s narrative.

Even high-profile defendants in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) such as Donald Trump, R. Kelly, Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein, who reportedly paid millions for their legal defense, faced significant legal hurdles. These cases illustrate that paying for top legal representation does not necessarily overcome the aggressive and strategic tactics employed by federal prosecutors. Despite having vast financial resources, all four defendants faced formidable legal challenges that their defense teams could not fully mitigate. Their experiences, like Dr. Washington’s, demonstrate that financial resources alone do not guarantee a favorable outcome in the face of SDNY or federal government (Team USA) prosecution strategies.

In Dr. Washington’s case, despite being advised to settle, he pursued a trial with my support. The court invited me to directly examine Dr. Washington during the trial due to my extensive knowledge of the case’s allegations and the supporting evidence I had helped manage. This role allowed us to present his narrative more fully and attempt to counteract the prosecution’s efforts.

No lawyer, whether working privately or publicly, can avoid the pressure to make the legal system run smoothly, which often leads to settling cases as suggested by Rule 1.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Famous cases like those of Trump, R. Kelly, Epstein, and Weinstein show that spending millions on legal fees doesn’t always mean winning. Defending yourself can drain your money, and even well-funded defenses can struggle against strong federal prosecution. Dr. William Washington decided to represent himself in court, with my help as “Next Friend,” showing the conflict between seeking justice and the financial and systemic pressures to accept plea deals. While we wait for the outcome of his case, this situation highlights the big personal and financial challenges defendants face. Our teamwork has kept his medical clinic stable during this legal trouble.

Each week, I’ll share stories, tools, and ideas that keep progress moving forward. It’s not about making grand gestures, but rather the steady, consistent effort that leads to real change.

Let’s keep going.

Subscribe

Relevant Sources:

Town Law LLC, “Public Defenders vs. Private Attorneys: A Comparative Analysis” This analysis outlines the key differences between public defenders and private attorneys, particularly in how their caseloads and resources affect the outcomes of plea deals. Link: Public Defenders vs. Private Attorneys

Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, “Private Attorney or Public Defender?: Negotiating Plea Deals in an Age of Mass Incarceration” This article explores the broader structural issues of mass incarceration and how plea deals, often negotiated by both private and public attorneys, contribute to the system’s emphasis on efficiency over justice. Link: Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics

McClenahen Law Firm, “Do Private Attorneys Get Better Plea Deals than Public Defenders?” This resource compares how private attorneys often negotiate better plea deals than public defenders due to more time, resources, and focused attention, although this can come at a steep financial cost. Link: McClenahen Law Firm

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness This pivotal book examines how the legal system, particularly through the overuse of plea bargaining, disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, perpetuating systemic inequalities. It connects mass incarceration to civil rights issues and highlights how the justice system often prioritizes expediency over fairness. Link: The New Jim Crow