IV. ATTORNEYS
During the course of the project, monitors observed a variety of attorneys at work in the
Supreme Court, Criminal Term, including court-appointed attorneys, assistant district attorneys,
Legal Aid Society attorneys, and attorneys in private practice. Overall, the attorneys were
praised for their efforts to provide proper representation under somewhat difficult circumstances.
However, some attorneys, particularly in the arraignments parts, were sometimes inadequately
prepared or absent, resulting in lengthy delays or adjournments.
General Assessment of Attorneys
Overall, attorneys received praise for their performance in the Criminal Term. The
monitors found that the attorneys were —competent,“ —polite,“ and even —funny at times.“ The
monitors also noted that attorneys seemed —well-prepared“ and —not inclined to waste time.“
One monitor remarked, —For the most part, ADAs and defense attorneys appeared to be prepared
and engaged.“ Another monitor who observed a murder case commented, —It is fascinating how
seriously the 18-b attorneys work at these cases. They are prepared, intensely involved and
seemed to very professional. The ADA was also deeply involved and has obviously prepared
himself well.“ In another case, one monitor described the defense attorney as —amazing,“ and
noted, —The defense attorney worked very hard with a case [that] was to say the least a difficult
one to defend.“
The student monitors were impressed by how attorneys treated litigants. They described
attorneys as generally —cordial“ and —respectful“ in their dealings with litigants, noting that the
attorneys‘ —behavior towards the witnesses and jurors was very professional.“ One monitor
praised, —I was pleasantly surprised [that] the attorneys treated their clients with respect and
dignity [and] were nice and polite. It was really nice to see.“ Another monitor described a
defense attorney from Legal Aid as —nice“ and —patient“ with a defendant who could not speak
English.
Monitors were particularly impressed by the attorneys‘ —competent“ and sometimes
—lively“ presentations of their cases. One monitor described, an —ADA was experienced and well
prepared with exhibits (photos, diagrams, surveillance tapes). Questioning of the witnesses was
meticulous.“ Another monitor found that —the defense attorneys were dramatic and decisive.
They moved around holding the attention of the jury.“ During another case, a monitor noted,
—The defense attorney cleverly established rapport [with the jurors] by making his opening
statement not at the lectern but at the jury box.“ However, one monitor described a ADA‘s —
presentation [as] rather dull . . . especially since he read much of it from his notes.“
Several attorneys received praise for their —calm“ demeanor in the courtroom. One
monitor observed, the ADA —was exasperated with the judge during the session. However, he
kept calm as possible and maintained [his] dignity throughout the afternoon.“ During another
proceeding, a monitor reported, —The prosecutor was visibly angry with the judge . . .however,
any feelings about the judge were contained.“