David - I will CHEERFULY, nay JOYFULLY try to deconstruct 90 % of any idiotic lawyer jokes & unthinking lawyer BS remarks that I might hear from hence, with Ma'at ( Egyptian goddess of balance / equanimity ) as my witness..... RESPECT !
This is such an incredible way of giving back! I always thought I’d enjoy law school. I like doing research and I like forming arguments. I have a passion for justice. But I could never have afforded it. Most people who put up the time, money and effort of law school want the payoff and who can blame them?
The world needs for many more privileged people to use their resources for good and to do really meaningful work like this.
What a great entry ! Thank you for sharing it. I used to hang out with a lot of public defenders. I was a union organizer and we had a lot in common in terms of long hours, tons of emotional stress and fighting for the underdog. I love the fact that your brother is using the freedom that family money gives for good. I’ve had kinda the opposite- I’ve used the freedom that knowing how to live with very little to do what good I can. Love to both of you and your families.
Like your brother, I was a criminal defense attorney for over 3 decades. I was “trained” by being thrown into misdemeanor court, where you can’t do much harm from ignorance. After that, training was more structured and targeted, and I also trained lawyers in seminars and at the office. The distinction between prosecutors and defense attorneys is exactly as your brother described, and that personality difference is why I think most prosecutors don’t make good defense attorneys when they quit working for government because they want more $$. Few prosecutors can identify with the men who kill. They viscerally fear disorder and murder is the height of disorder. Few of my clients were willing to describe their state of mind (for the indisputable killings, usually intimate partner), and I never expected anyone to admit guilt at first. The most heartbreaking aspect of the job, and the reason I finally threw in the towel, is how young and dumb my clients were. Dumb as in uneducated, numb to their own world, using drugs to get through their trauma and pain. The baby mamas, who hitched their lives to a kid who paid for diapers, left alone when he gets life, raising a baby on nothing. I once represented an LA gang member whose father, grandfather, 3 uncles, and 4 brothers ALL were imprisoned for killing someone. I met his son, raised by a woman who knew this history and was desperate to keep him safe. He later killed her boyfriend. The day he was arrested she called me. That one stayed with me so long…the thing is, you don’t just represent one guy. You meet his grandma, patiently waiting in the court hallway. You handles multiple baby mamas. You go to the state prison to meet his daddy doing life on a 3-strike. They entwine your heart.
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Ellen for your comment. Your perspective on how heartbreaking the work is was valuable to read. "They entwine your heart" is a beautiful way to express it.
This is good and very worthy for someone of means to work as a public defender. Good takes on the psychological nature of DAs vs defense lawyers, and also good observation that the worst place to be as a defendant is being middle class or lower professional class.
Awesome post. Thanks David and Samuel. Having spent 30 years of my legal career defending doctors in medical malpractice lawsuits, it's nice to hear that you overlooked a bad outcome in favor of good medical care and launched an amazing career. Two favorite lines from the post: "And feeling this immense privilege that what you might say to a jury can have operative effect on the fate of another human being." "And like with most things in life, the things that you like happen to be the things that you happen to be good at."
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Janet for the comment. I don't think I knew that you had so much experience with medical malpractice defense work.
Fascinating read from start to finish about working as a Legal Aid defense attorney. The other side of Law & Order.
A great, thought provoking, sometimes uncomfortable look at altruism and utilitarianism at play that is not only worth reading, but also worth thinking about deeply. So good, as always, David.
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Cici. My brother's world would be uncomfortable for me, which is all the more reason that I'm so proud of the work he does.
Thank you for the amazing work you do, Samuel, and thank you David for this fascinating and enlightening essay. Loved the comments about the personalities of prosecutors and defense attorneys, and also court TV.
This was such a fascinating read. I thought it was going to be about your botched nose job leading you to public defense—haha! I loved hearing about your work and was especially intrigued by this line:
“I don’t and can’t worry about exonerating someone who goes out to convict another crime.”
Could you say more about why you feel it’s ethically justifiable to focus solely on your duties within the parameters of your job, rather than taking a broader view of what is right and reducing harm? I hear this reasoning often—where people exempt themselves from considering their moral duty beyond their role—and it strikes me as somewhat dubious logic. A similar example is CEOs who justify mass layoffs by saying their job is simply to maximize company profits, even when the salaries they cut are negligible compared to their own earnings.
Would love to hear your perspective. Thanks again for sharing your story.
Hi Sophie - thanks for reading the interview and for your comments. Bug thanks you as well.
I am ethically requires to provide a zealous defense within the boundaries of the law and the cannons of ethics. It is not my job to judge my client (there are many, many others who will do that, and with relish!). It is definitely not my judge to decide which of my clients is more deserving of a defense, or to pull punches in a case - like the very rare one i referenced in the interview, involving the stone cold sociopath - where folks might be legitimately concerned that the client would commit further crime if released. The cases where I "know" that my client is guilty are precisely those cases in which the evidence is overwhelming (DNA, confession, crime captured on high quality video, etc). And in those cases my job - which i try to fulfill vigorously - is to engage in substantial mitigation and negotiate the best possible offer (sentence) from the prosecution. All of the serious cases that I've handled that have gone to trial involved defenses that I truly believed in, but that weren't necessarily geared toward a full acquitted- for example a defense in which we pursued an acquittal on murder but thar nevertheless entailed a conviction on manslaughter (for recklessly rather than intnetionally causing death). I guess I'd also respond to your question by asking: what would it look like if I privileged my subjective conception of "justice" over a vigorous defense of an unsavory client? Apart from the untenable options of (1) refusing to take the case or (2) purposefully pulling punches, tanking the case? Actually, I think justice is best served in a very serious case when, despite the highest quality defense - a "million dollar defense" that i strive to provide - the prosecution is able to convince 12 members of the community beyond reasonable doubt that my client in fact committed a terrible crime. Then everyone sleeps ok. And on the other hand, if I am able to "win", then maybe there really were questions as to my client's actual guilt? Not sure if that answers your questions ....
Thanks so much! It does answer my questions. That makes sense re: belief in justice and the system rather than your subjective perception of their guilt. I guess I’m more so thinking of cases where it’s plainly obvious someone was guilty of murder, for example, but maybe there aren’t so many of these? Obviously the ethical standards of your job require you to pursue a vigorous defense to the best of your ability in a way that might be at odds with your personal conception of the crime, and I suppose if you refuted a case on the basis that someone was obviously guilty, someone else would take it. I guess morally I just think it would be hard to dismiss your own moral perception and put all this energy into defending someone you believe is worthy of a severe conviction? That said, the end of your reply made me think of the ethics of rhetoric more broadly and the ways in which well-articulated arguments can often be conflated with sound ones—would be curious your take on how this applies in the courtroom, too.
Hi again, Sophie! Much as I'd like to imagine otherwise, even the best of us Defense lawyers don't have demonic powers of persuasion. And much as our client might wish otherwise, we don't have the power to change the facts. Thus, when evidence of guilt is overwhelming, there is little we can do but provide mitigation. And juries are smart - group-think is powerful - and no matter how well-articulated and clever the argument, if it doesn't resonate with the jury's collective impression of what is true and just, the argument will fall flat. So, I don't think there are many - if any - occasions where it is possible to achieve an "unjust" end sheerly through rhetorical skill. (That said, I have been proud of successfully asserting "outlier" defenses that may seem dubious on their face - getting the jury to acknowledge that sometimes, when you hear hoofbeats, it's a zebra and not a horse....)
This was excellent. Enlightening. There's a book here. My favorite part so far (I'm only halfway through the video) is, "I think reasonable doubt is generally a very, very important aspect of life both inside and outside the courtroom." It speaks to the necessity of humility - a sadly silenced and unremembered quality that does nothing less than make all else possible. Thank you for reminding us.
Wow, thanks so much for bringing your brother’s perspective to us. The question he asks about how to bring his unique and particular set of talents to the world, given the privilege his wealth affords him, is really important and is one that I think any of us, no matter our own level of “privilege,” should consider. I know I am.
I love this profile. I'm a former DV prosecutor and must quibble with the assessment of our lack of nuance--it'd be hard not to understand the brokenness of the system from anywhere inside it. Some of the people with the greatest integrity I met worked at the King's County DA's Office, (and at the Harris County DA's office in Houston, TX, where I first worked) and I was glad of that because I agree--the machinery of justice can be dangerously inhumane and frightening. We benefit from good people on both sides.
Hi Isabel. Of course, I was generalizing in my assessment of personality differences btw prosecutors and defenss attorneys. Ive worked across the aisle from prosecutors who - like yourself im sure and your colleagues in Brooklyn - indeed took a nuanced approach to the case and the client. And the majority of prosecutors I've gone up against have been folks of obvious integrity. I do think that, in developing theories of the case and in appealing to juries, defense attorneys trade in the gray whereas the prosecutorial vision and urging are more squarely in the realm of black and white.
Loved this. I wish more people could follow their heart in the same way. And I loved what he said about reasonable doubt and certainty. I am not a believer in certainty, I think there are always two things at once.
I agree with Sam Rittenberg--this was excellent and enlightening. I was captivated (TRULY!) from beginning to end. God bless Samuel...and people with that kind of openminded and generous heart.
David - I will CHEERFULY, nay JOYFULLY try to deconstruct 90 % of any idiotic lawyer jokes & unthinking lawyer BS remarks that I might hear from hence, with Ma'at ( Egyptian goddess of balance / equanimity ) as my witness..... RESPECT !
This is such an incredible way of giving back! I always thought I’d enjoy law school. I like doing research and I like forming arguments. I have a passion for justice. But I could never have afforded it. Most people who put up the time, money and effort of law school want the payoff and who can blame them?
The world needs for many more privileged people to use their resources for good and to do really meaningful work like this.
Thanks Michelle. I am very proud of what Samuel does and how he's using his skills.
It's David. My computer broke!
What a great entry ! Thank you for sharing it. I used to hang out with a lot of public defenders. I was a union organizer and we had a lot in common in terms of long hours, tons of emotional stress and fighting for the underdog. I love the fact that your brother is using the freedom that family money gives for good. I’ve had kinda the opposite- I’ve used the freedom that knowing how to live with very little to do what good I can. Love to both of you and your families.
Hi April,
It's David. I broke my computer, Thanks for the comment. I'm very proud of my brother.
Such great, important work. We’re all so very proud of what Samuel accomplishes and his influence on so many lives.
Like your brother, I was a criminal defense attorney for over 3 decades. I was “trained” by being thrown into misdemeanor court, where you can’t do much harm from ignorance. After that, training was more structured and targeted, and I also trained lawyers in seminars and at the office. The distinction between prosecutors and defense attorneys is exactly as your brother described, and that personality difference is why I think most prosecutors don’t make good defense attorneys when they quit working for government because they want more $$. Few prosecutors can identify with the men who kill. They viscerally fear disorder and murder is the height of disorder. Few of my clients were willing to describe their state of mind (for the indisputable killings, usually intimate partner), and I never expected anyone to admit guilt at first. The most heartbreaking aspect of the job, and the reason I finally threw in the towel, is how young and dumb my clients were. Dumb as in uneducated, numb to their own world, using drugs to get through their trauma and pain. The baby mamas, who hitched their lives to a kid who paid for diapers, left alone when he gets life, raising a baby on nothing. I once represented an LA gang member whose father, grandfather, 3 uncles, and 4 brothers ALL were imprisoned for killing someone. I met his son, raised by a woman who knew this history and was desperate to keep him safe. He later killed her boyfriend. The day he was arrested she called me. That one stayed with me so long…the thing is, you don’t just represent one guy. You meet his grandma, patiently waiting in the court hallway. You handles multiple baby mamas. You go to the state prison to meet his daddy doing life on a 3-strike. They entwine your heart.
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Ellen for your comment. Your perspective on how heartbreaking the work is was valuable to read. "They entwine your heart" is a beautiful way to express it.
This is good and very worthy for someone of means to work as a public defender. Good takes on the psychological nature of DAs vs defense lawyers, and also good observation that the worst place to be as a defendant is being middle class or lower professional class.
Awesome post. Thanks David and Samuel. Having spent 30 years of my legal career defending doctors in medical malpractice lawsuits, it's nice to hear that you overlooked a bad outcome in favor of good medical care and launched an amazing career. Two favorite lines from the post: "And feeling this immense privilege that what you might say to a jury can have operative effect on the fate of another human being." "And like with most things in life, the things that you like happen to be the things that you happen to be good at."
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Janet for the comment. I don't think I knew that you had so much experience with medical malpractice defense work.
Fascinating read from start to finish about working as a Legal Aid defense attorney. The other side of Law & Order.
A great, thought provoking, sometimes uncomfortable look at altruism and utilitarianism at play that is not only worth reading, but also worth thinking about deeply. So good, as always, David.
It's David. I broke my computer. Thanks Cici. My brother's world would be uncomfortable for me, which is all the more reason that I'm so proud of the work he does.
I have a spare if you need an extra lol
I have a new computer.
Welcome back!!!!!
From the flu to a broken computer...I feel like you haven't caught a break! Glad you're back in business.
Thank you for the amazing work you do, Samuel, and thank you David for this fascinating and enlightening essay. Loved the comments about the personalities of prosecutors and defense attorneys, and also court TV.
This was such a fascinating read. I thought it was going to be about your botched nose job leading you to public defense—haha! I loved hearing about your work and was especially intrigued by this line:
“I don’t and can’t worry about exonerating someone who goes out to convict another crime.”
Could you say more about why you feel it’s ethically justifiable to focus solely on your duties within the parameters of your job, rather than taking a broader view of what is right and reducing harm? I hear this reasoning often—where people exempt themselves from considering their moral duty beyond their role—and it strikes me as somewhat dubious logic. A similar example is CEOs who justify mass layoffs by saying their job is simply to maximize company profits, even when the salaries they cut are negligible compared to their own earnings.
Would love to hear your perspective. Thanks again for sharing your story.
P.S. Bug is adorable!
Hi Sophie - thanks for reading the interview and for your comments. Bug thanks you as well.
I am ethically requires to provide a zealous defense within the boundaries of the law and the cannons of ethics. It is not my job to judge my client (there are many, many others who will do that, and with relish!). It is definitely not my judge to decide which of my clients is more deserving of a defense, or to pull punches in a case - like the very rare one i referenced in the interview, involving the stone cold sociopath - where folks might be legitimately concerned that the client would commit further crime if released. The cases where I "know" that my client is guilty are precisely those cases in which the evidence is overwhelming (DNA, confession, crime captured on high quality video, etc). And in those cases my job - which i try to fulfill vigorously - is to engage in substantial mitigation and negotiate the best possible offer (sentence) from the prosecution. All of the serious cases that I've handled that have gone to trial involved defenses that I truly believed in, but that weren't necessarily geared toward a full acquitted- for example a defense in which we pursued an acquittal on murder but thar nevertheless entailed a conviction on manslaughter (for recklessly rather than intnetionally causing death). I guess I'd also respond to your question by asking: what would it look like if I privileged my subjective conception of "justice" over a vigorous defense of an unsavory client? Apart from the untenable options of (1) refusing to take the case or (2) purposefully pulling punches, tanking the case? Actually, I think justice is best served in a very serious case when, despite the highest quality defense - a "million dollar defense" that i strive to provide - the prosecution is able to convince 12 members of the community beyond reasonable doubt that my client in fact committed a terrible crime. Then everyone sleeps ok. And on the other hand, if I am able to "win", then maybe there really were questions as to my client's actual guilt? Not sure if that answers your questions ....
Thanks so much! It does answer my questions. That makes sense re: belief in justice and the system rather than your subjective perception of their guilt. I guess I’m more so thinking of cases where it’s plainly obvious someone was guilty of murder, for example, but maybe there aren’t so many of these? Obviously the ethical standards of your job require you to pursue a vigorous defense to the best of your ability in a way that might be at odds with your personal conception of the crime, and I suppose if you refuted a case on the basis that someone was obviously guilty, someone else would take it. I guess morally I just think it would be hard to dismiss your own moral perception and put all this energy into defending someone you believe is worthy of a severe conviction? That said, the end of your reply made me think of the ethics of rhetoric more broadly and the ways in which well-articulated arguments can often be conflated with sound ones—would be curious your take on how this applies in the courtroom, too.
Hi again, Sophie! Much as I'd like to imagine otherwise, even the best of us Defense lawyers don't have demonic powers of persuasion. And much as our client might wish otherwise, we don't have the power to change the facts. Thus, when evidence of guilt is overwhelming, there is little we can do but provide mitigation. And juries are smart - group-think is powerful - and no matter how well-articulated and clever the argument, if it doesn't resonate with the jury's collective impression of what is true and just, the argument will fall flat. So, I don't think there are many - if any - occasions where it is possible to achieve an "unjust" end sheerly through rhetorical skill. (That said, I have been proud of successfully asserting "outlier" defenses that may seem dubious on their face - getting the jury to acknowledge that sometimes, when you hear hoofbeats, it's a zebra and not a horse....)
Sophie and Samuel,
Great dialogue!
This is reassuring, thanks for engaging and the insight. :)
This was excellent. Enlightening. There's a book here. My favorite part so far (I'm only halfway through the video) is, "I think reasonable doubt is generally a very, very important aspect of life both inside and outside the courtroom." It speaks to the necessity of humility - a sadly silenced and unremembered quality that does nothing less than make all else possible. Thank you for reminding us.
Wow, thanks so much for bringing your brother’s perspective to us. The question he asks about how to bring his unique and particular set of talents to the world, given the privilege his wealth affords him, is really important and is one that I think any of us, no matter our own level of “privilege,” should consider. I know I am.
I love this profile. I'm a former DV prosecutor and must quibble with the assessment of our lack of nuance--it'd be hard not to understand the brokenness of the system from anywhere inside it. Some of the people with the greatest integrity I met worked at the King's County DA's Office, (and at the Harris County DA's office in Houston, TX, where I first worked) and I was glad of that because I agree--the machinery of justice can be dangerously inhumane and frightening. We benefit from good people on both sides.
Hi Isabel. Of course, I was generalizing in my assessment of personality differences btw prosecutors and defenss attorneys. Ive worked across the aisle from prosecutors who - like yourself im sure and your colleagues in Brooklyn - indeed took a nuanced approach to the case and the client. And the majority of prosecutors I've gone up against have been folks of obvious integrity. I do think that, in developing theories of the case and in appealing to juries, defense attorneys trade in the gray whereas the prosecutorial vision and urging are more squarely in the realm of black and white.
Loved this. I wish more people could follow their heart in the same way. And I loved what he said about reasonable doubt and certainty. I am not a believer in certainty, I think there are always two things at once.
“And like with most things in life, the things that you like happen to be the things that you happen to be good at.”
As it should be for everyone’s job/career/profession!
I loved reading this interview, which confirms my faith in our public system. (I need that right now!)
PS My brother-in-law, whom I turned on to your newsletter, sent a copy this morning to my husband!
It's David, I broke my computer. Thanks Etta for the comment and thanks to your brother-in-law!
I wish my husband would read what I write and what I recommend to him! 🙄
I agree with Sam Rittenberg--this was excellent and enlightening. I was captivated (TRULY!) from beginning to end. God bless Samuel...and people with that kind of openminded and generous heart.