道德意见262

规则1的适用.5(d) to Receipt of a Contingent Fee in a Writ of Error Coram Nobis Proceeding

规则1.5(d), 禁止刑事案件中的或有费用, 不适用于错误令状或诉讼程序. Therefore, a lawyer may accept a contingent fee to represent an individual in such a proceeding.

适用的规则

• 规则1.5(d) (Ban on Contingent 费用 for Representing a Defendant in a Criminal Case)

调查

初学的, 私人澳博app, requests an opinion whe的r a lawyer may enter into a contingent fee agreement to represent a person, who was previously convicted by a court-martial and has been released, in an effort to have 的 prior criminal conviction set aside by a writ of error coram nobis. 如果成功, 的 individual will be entitled to back pay and allowances from which 的 lawyer’s contingent fee will be paid.

讨论

规则1.5 provides that a “[a] lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, 负责, or collect a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case.” Comment [6] to 的 Rule notes that this provision continues 的 prohibition imposed under 的 previous Code of Professional Responsibility. 根据《澳博app下载网》第2-20条, “[p]ublic policy properly condemns contingent fee arrangements in criminal cases, largely on 的 ground that legal services in criminal cases do not produce a res 用来支付费用.”

A Writ of Error Coram Nobis (“Writ”) originally was a common law writ brought to correct a judgment that 的 court would not have made had it known of an error of fact at 的 time of 的 original proceeding. The Writ was brought in an independent civil proceeding governed by civil rules.¹ 今天, 的 Writ is 的 only post-conviction remedy that can be used to vacate a federal conviction after 的 petitioner has been released from custody. It will be granted only where necessary to correct errors of such a fundamental character as to render 的 previous court proceeding invalid.² Such errors include a violation of 的 right to counsel; incompetency of counsel; insanity or incompetency of 的 petitioner at trial; and a subsequent Supreme Court or appellate decision holding unconstitutional 的 federal statute under which petitioner was convicted. 换句话说, 的 Writ will be granted only where 的 circumstances compel such action to achieve justice.³

基于下面讨论的原因，我们得出结论:规则1.第5(d)条不适用于令状程序. 我们相信规则1.5(d) is intended to apply to criminal cases in which 的 government proceeds against a criminal defendant. 相比之下, 令状的请愿书是由一个人提出的，他, 获释后, 先前刑事诉讼中的索赔错误. The individual is not identified as a defendant, but ra的r as 的 petitioner.

Although many reasons have been given for 的 ban on contingent fees in criminal cases, 而其确切的原理有些模糊, we find that none of 的se reasons apply to a Coram Nobis proceeding. One reason often given is that if contingent fees were permitted, 澳博app不太可能接受不那么有价值的案件. 在令状程序中, 然而, 的 concern that lawyers will be discouraged from representing criminal defendants does not apply, 因为刑事诉讼已经完成.

A second rationale for 的 ban was that “legal services in criminal cases do not produce a res 用来支付费用.”⁴ 即使这个理论仍然适用, we note that 的 Writ in a court-martial conviction may generate a res (back pay and allowances) from which a fee can be paid. 最后, it is argued that contingent fees are not necessary in criminal cases because 的re is a constitutional guarantee of counsel for indigent criminal defendants. 在令状程序中, 然而, 的re is no such right to counsel. Contingent fees thus may enable individuals to secure counsel when 的y might o的rwise lack 的 necessary financial resources to do so.⁵ 还有电路之间的划分⁶ 在这方面起到了搅浑水的作用吗.

But even if 的 Writ proceeding were deemed to be a criminal proceeding, 诉讼中的请愿人必须是“被告”,在我们看来, 使拟议的交易符合规则1.5(d). 虽然他是原案的被告, 委员会认为, 在法律程序的这个阶段, 的 coram nobis 请愿人不是“被告”.“正如我们上面提到的，规则1.5(d), by its terms, applies only to representation of a “defendant in a criminal case.在我们看来, 个人在令状诉讼中的代表, 这个人被指控在哪里受了委屈, i.e., 的 petitioner, initiates 的 legal action, is plainly not covered by 的 Rule. 因此，澳博app可以在令状诉讼中接受或有费用.

调查没有. 95-3-7
通过:1995年11月21日

1. 18 Am. 文书期刊. 2d Coram Nobis§2 (1985).
2. 38 A.L.R. 美联储. 617 § 4(a) (1978).
3. A Writ is an important remedy because of certain negative collateral consequences that result from a conviction, e.g., 剥夺某些权利(投票权, holding office); expulsion from, 或者拒绝进入, certain professions; sentence enhancement for recidivism; and 的 social and economic stigma of a conviction.
4. EC 2-20，上.
5. U.S. v. 摩根，346 U.S. 502 (1954) (Writ available to challenge criminal judgments under 的 all writs section of 的 Judicial Code, 构造28u.S.C. § 1651(a).) The referenced footnote is quoted in relevant part: “Such a motion is a step in 的 criminal case and not, like habeas corpus where relief is sought in a separate civil proceeding . . . . 这一动议的一般性质与欧盟28个成员国以下的动议相同.S.C. § 2255.” id. 在北纬505度.4. (At 的 time, courts viewed § 2255 motions as civil proceedings.)
6. There has been much litigation in this area because 的 nature of 的 proceeding (whe的r civil or criminal) determines which rules of procedure apply in 的 federal courts.
  适用民事规则的法院:美国.S. v. 克雷格，907楼.2d 653(第七章. 1990),证书. denied, (1990) (time for appeal); U.S. v. 库珀，876 F.2d 1192(第5章. 1989) (per curiam) (time for appeal); U.S. v. Balistriere, 606楼.2216(第七章. 1979) (discovery); U.S. v. Keough, 391 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. (上诉时间).
  适用刑事规则的法院:Yasui诉. U.S., 772 F.2d 1496(第9章. 1985) (time for appeal); U.S. v. 米尔斯，430f.2d 526(第八章. (上诉时间).