Have you ever heard the expression "a lawyer who represents him or herself has a fool for a client"?
Here's a new Ninth Circuit case that puts a slightly different spin on the notion of fools for clients even though they were not lawyers. In US v. Johnson, the trial judge conducted a hearing and "practically begged [the defendants] to accept counsel but they refused." The court then concluded that "[t]he record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent."
Thanks to the Legal Ethics Forum for the information and the link to the opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment