Despite one's distaste for using public resources when persons don't qualify, every lawyer must remember they can't hurt their client.

I am an assistant public defender and I am concerned that both the court and Public Defender's Office are not properly reviewing the financial status of potential clients. They do not require clients to sign an affidavit that they do not have sufficient funds or assets to retain legal counsel. As a result, many of the defender clients in my office do not really qualify for defender representation. Is my ethical obligation to reveal the fact that they do not qualify or continue to represent these clients?

The question is an interesting one. This writer has observed many clients who do not qualify. Yet, they are still appointed counsel or a defender. Many times, courts will appoint clients who do not qualify as a convenience to the court to keep moving cases. That practice used to be a bone of contention with the private bar since paying private clients are difficult to find. The question raises valid concerns. The concern is, if persons are being represented who can afford private counsel, why are public funds being used for them as opposed to people who truly need a public defender or court-appointed counsel? As a result, there are less monies available and available resources are being depleted. The second concern is, of course, the private bar. Though the private criminal defense bar often gets little respect and very little public support, the private bar is seeing cases being diverted into the public defender or court-appointed system.