*2 expense lic does create a standard Atty., Crawford, Asst. Dist. D. James superior enjoyed paying to that fee (Richard Sprague, Philadelphia, A. equivalent in cases. It well Specter, Atty., Arlen First Asst. Dist. experience be that vast of De brief), Atty., appellee. for Dist. Philadelphia, fender Association which of KALODNER, Before STALEY represented trial, relator makes at his Judges. FREEDMAN, Circuit possible equal service of at least com greater petency efficiency and with than THE COURT OPINION OF paying that which ordi fee defendants narily course, not, do receive. We of have PER CURIAM. any legally recognizable beyond facts deny- appeal This is an from an order relating in those the record to in this ing a of for a writ habeas cor- case. dividual We therefore have do pus. prisoner present- Relator is state a the full details of the the De ly serving burglary of sentence for any fender’s office. do we have Nor telephone After an booth. comparing repre basis for it with relief, hearing, the district court denied paying sentation which fee defendants probable appeal. but noted cause lawyers receive at hands of individual First, Relator makes two assertions. practicing in In the the criminal courts. provide pre- to that counsel at failure comparative of informa absence detailed liminary proc- of due a denial tion, to ex it would invidious make be Second, he effec- ess. denied that Nevertheless, comparisons. hope tended I counsel both trial tive assistance of it to the circum will useful describe sentencing. court, in an The district point of case out stances analyzed thoroughly unreported opinion, questions some and dismissed of these contentions each raise. them. After examination careful representative A of the Defender As- record, find no error. Philadelphia of interviewed re- sociation the district court will The order of prepared lator office file on affirmed. days prior morn- On the case ten trial. met with staff of Judge FREEDMAN, (concur- Circuit group in other clients relator and ring). having City earli- Hall after cellroom Only of some er their The invoked the reviewed files. able district singled group adopted out for individual doctrine we United States ap- Rundle, The rest of their cases. discussion Mathis v. general on parently advice presumed to 1968), prejudice received It is difficult appointment coun- their conduct court. follow from the late happened if however, envisage found, expressly what would have He sel. for- any pre- had come of the defendants the Commonwealth rebutted ad- finding, requiring sumption prejudice. information ward with new This investigation specifically or research. ditional made after district sufficiently in upon prepare the relator case failure considered the facts hardly seem a relies, accepted would advance must be state in a continuance Procedure. basis for Rules of Civil great safeguards pro- like urban center tion. No such inherent trial court indigent, Philadelphia, a massive City tect the is therefore es- and it processed. representation sential must be quantity of cases entitled receive under Wain- Gideon v. ex- man of was a The staff wright, 792, 9 S.Ct. assigned case to the perience. He *3 (1963), too L.Ed.2d 799 bear judge offense had taken because comparison unfavorable a with younger who private afford their firms law assigned to defend originally been clients. anger judge had his relator. as described counsel of fact I feel out what bound handed more outrageous “really judge sentences.” at as the district arrived put in, lawyer sent as an experienced conclusion after reasoned hearing. important “calm the it, “fireman” I deem it But as the sentencing third affirming corpus At the denial of habeas relator’s down.” him- assigned; he confined attention call this case we should judge. remarks in the interest to sidebar need for watchful self practices the institutionalized inherent risk in cases where There all indigents. representation of only many clients, even client rights lawyer, an individual submerged long-range needs example, one representative. For of his envisage many eye other whose must he seeks to bank untried cases as America, indignation judge’s fires of a Appellee, up fully for to stand to be able client, rights single whatever aof COLON, Appellant. Esmeraldo GAZARD they may and wherever in- appease an The desire Docket 33931. lead him. dignant No. already in- has who excessively sen- harsh what seem flicted Second Circuit. magnified institution- tences is Argued Nov. many de- represents other law office al 11, 1969. Decided Dec. pressure to sub- fendants and is rights of one the individual ordinate good larger all. larger
The modern toward law trend
firms, private public, diminishes both relationship completeness of a client’s legal representative.
with an individual imperson- operate courts must Since the
ally in their consideration of the case right, accused, the accused has age, increasingly institutional
even represent who him
to look to those personal, individual attention. pay services,
Where for their competition pro- element of at the bar safeguard
vides some inherent of individ- representation against
ualized institu- private
tional encroachment. Successful good requires also will of clients, mitigation and this affords some impersonality institu-