Pros and Cons of Public and Private Defenders - Research Paper Example

 Pros and Cons of Public and Private Defenders Being charged with a criminal offense is a very serious thing that at times compels people to seek for the services of defenders to represent them. Depending on different factors, individuals charged are free to make a choice of engaging the services of a private or public defenders. A public defender is a lawyer who is employed by the government and is charged with the duty of representing people who are charged, but can not afford the services of private defenders. A private defender is an attorney who is involved in a private practice and is contracted to represent anyone who can hire and pay for their services. When charged for criminal or civil offences, people always have to choose the type of attorney to use because of the benefits they can accrue from them. This paper reports on the pros and cons of a public and private attorney. The first advantage that associated with public defenders is that they are professionals whose services are given to the public free of charge. Anyone entitled to the services of public attorney does not need to pay. Since they are paid by the county and state governments, the public do not need to spend even a single cent on them. Meaning, they are the cheapest attorneys whose services are guaranteed so long as one qualifies to be represented by them. However, this does not apply to the private defenders who are directly hired by the client who fully pays for their services in case they need to be represented in a court of law. In fact, this is a disadvantage of private defenders (Reyrauch, 2011). Unlike their counterparts, private attorneys only represent one in the court of law if they are properly paid by the same client. Meaning, if one does not have enough money, one might be forced to borrow, take a loan or forfeit the services of a private defender. The other advantage of a public defender is that their presence in a case might make the case to be presided over and finished within the shortest time possible. As public officers, public defenders often have a backlog of cases to represent. Therefore, in order to save on time, they have to liaise with the prosecutor and the bench to ensure that a case is heard and decided upon within a short time. This is the only way through which they can create room for other cases which are obviously awaiting them. Surprisingly, this does not apply to the private defenders who are keen on simultaneously handling a few cases and spending a lot of time in conducting private investigations and conducting all the other logistical. So, with a private defender, a case might take longer because their main intention is not to close the case, but to win it. This becomes a con linked to private defenders. Moreover, public defenders are efficient in representing their clients. Even if many people have tainted them as incompetent caliber of attorneys, the truth is that these are trained and highly qualified experts who are competent in handling a wide range of cases. So, even if they do not have enough time to have an eye contact with their clients out of courtrooms, they are efficient in using the little time they have to conduct investigations and argue the cases. Thus, they win. Meanwhile, despite their efficiency in handling cases, it is so challenging for the clients to get private attorneys who are specialized in certain areas of interest. This is a con for private defenders that anyone planning to hire them should know. There are certain areas of specialty whose lawyers are very few and can be readily available when need arises (Abel, 2010). On the other hand, private defenders have got the benefits that accrue to those who hire them. To begin with, private attorneys can handle both criminal and civil cases. This is a benefit enjoyed by the public because once they qualify to represent clients who are charged with civil and criminal offences. It is good news for offenders who can afford to private defenders because they would not be restricted by a case. So long as one has his or her own preferred attorney, they can be represented regardless of whether they are battling criminal, administrative or civil cases. This does not apply to the public attorneys whose disadvantage is that they are only limited to criminal cases. So, they can not for instance represent a person who is charged with cases like Driving Under Influence (DUI). The other advantage of private attorneys is that they are not imposed on people. Everyone who is interested in seeking the services of private defenders is free to make their own choices-no one chooses for them. Once a person is charged with a criminal, administrative or civil case and they feel interested in hiring a private attorney, they would only need to take their time, carry out a background search to determine the affordability, competence, past records, specialty and reputation of the attorney (Reyrauch, 2011). With such freedom, a person would only choose to hire the best of the best private attorneys in the market. In contrast, public attorneys are not selected by individual clients. In case one’s application is accepted, it is the mandate of the judiciary to choose for them an attorney to represent them even if unknown to them. Lastly, private attorneys are preferred by many people because they are always available for their clients. Since they do not have many running cases at the same time, they have enough time to enable them to have a face to face contact with their clients and conduct their own private investigations. In other words, they dedicate their time to serving their clients and can be reached in case any legal counsel is required (Abel, 2010). However, this benefit can not be enjoyed by those represented by public defenders who are overburdened officers with no time to meet and counsel their clients. References Abel, R. (2010) American Lawyers. New York: Oxford University Press. Reyrauch, W. (2011) The Personality of Lawyers (New Haven: Yale University Press. Read More