By Alan Bean
I first discussed this story in December of 2009 when the controversy between exonerated Texans and their former attorneys appeared on the pages of the Dallas Morning News. Lubbock attorney Kevin Glasheen signed a standard contingency contract with a number of exonerees that gave him 25% of the eventual settlement with the city of Dallas. The clients eventually got their money, but it didn’t come from the city of Dallas. Instead, Glasheen lobbied the state legislature to enact a dramatic increase in the amount the wrongfully convicted are reimbursed. The contract says nothing about a fee for lobbying efforts and the clients say they don’t owe Mr. Glasheen (and Jeff Blackburn, the Innocence Project of Texas attorney who enlisted Glasheen’s efforts) a nickel.
A year and a half later, the issue is going before the state bar. John Schwartz of the New York Times, summarizes the central issues thusly:
The word “lobbying” does not appear in the contracts, and perhaps with good reason. Much of the legal world operates on contingency fees, allowing people with no money to get to court. The lawyer takes on the financial risk and, if successful, reaps a healthy chunk of the reward. But in Texas it is a felony to lobby the Legislature on a contingent-fee basis, because it can skew the incentives underlying public policy.
(Over at Grits for Breakfast, Scott Henson takes issue with the accuracy of the Times article.)
But this isn’t just a dispute over billing fees and the interpretation of legal contracts; the issue has emotional and moral components. No one should denigrate civil rights attorneys for charging a healthy fee for their services. Law school is expensive and attorneys frequently invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the cases they litigate. But most criminal justice reform advocates wish to believe that, for those involved in the legal side of the justice fight, altruism and a sense of higher purpose is part of the motivational mix. The advocacy community in Texas is divided over precisely this issue and there is no strictly legal answer. (more…)



By Charles Kiker
By Alan Bean
Eighteen months ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry appointed Williamson County DA John Bradley to head up the Texas Forensic Science Commission. It was like turning over the Vatican to Richard Dawkins. Bradley, like most Texas prosecutors, thinks forensic scientists have one role: helping the state convict bad guys; Perry’s atheist pope likes forensic testimony crafted to the needs of the prosecution.
“If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'” – George Orwell, 1984
Reviewed by Charles Kiker
Some pundits have speculated that the budget crises in the states could result in reduced incarceration. After all, reduction in prison populations could save states a bundle. Alan Bean has a couple of recent posts on the Friends of Justice blog that deal with this prospect: “