Letters to the Editor
Appeared in
The Albuquerque Journal
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Give Defenders Independence
As a former public defender, I am writing in response to the Journal's
coverage of House Bill 348— the bill that creates an Independent Public
Defender Commission to help run the New Mexico Public Defender
Department. I am concerned that the Journal's coverage of the bill did
not address the most important reason to support the bill— that it will
resolve a longstanding and untenable conflict of interest that has
compromised the representation of all public defender clients
HB 348 fits squarely into the category of ethics reform. In theory, all
lawyers in New Mexico must abide by a set of ethical rules that are
based in large part on the importance of maintaining a sense of loyalty
to the client. These rules remind lawyers how to recognize and resist
and remedy any conflict of interest that stands in the way of loyalty
to the client. Every private client hiring a lawyer expects and
deserves this loyalty.
But, for as long as the chief public defender has been appointed by and
accountable to the governor, the Public Defender Department has had a
conflict of interest with its own clients. Governors are elected after
promising to be fiscally conservative and "tough on crime." The chief
public defender's role is to be neither— if that means compromising the
representation of his or her clients. Thus, the conflict of interest is
born. Does the chief public defender choose to advocate for the very
public position of his or her boss, the governor— or advocate for the
interests of the client?
Public defender clients have suffered as chief public defenders have
chosen to side with their boss, the governor, year after year,
legislative session after legislative session. In practical terms, this
conflict of interest has meant that the chief public defender is
neither free to advocate for the resources the department needs nor
advocate for the needs of clients when those resources or needs
conflict with the governor's public position. This conflict of interest
can be seen in the way the Public Defender Department is missing in
action at the Legislature when bills that enhance criminal penalties or
create new criminal offenses are debated.
New Mexico has sadly lived with this conflict of interest for far too
long. This makes sense, I suppose, given that public defender clients
are by definition disenfranchised and disempowered. But now, the tide
is turning. Notably, HB 348 is supported by two former chief public
defenders— Jacquelyn Robins and Phyllis Subin. Now that they are no
longer bound by the knot of the ethical dilemma created by their former
positions, they can see the conflict for what it was. Through
bipartisan support of the bill, legislators have demonstrated that they
are just as clear-sighted. They have seen this conflict of interest for
what it is— and are acting to remedy it by moving HB 348 through the
Legislature and on to the governor's desk. We all deserve the
governor's signature on this bill.
Laurie Knight
Santa Fe |