Letter by John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen for the Prisons and Jail Project to the State Bar of Georgia complaining about the quality of representation of an attorney. This complaint resulted in the State Bar of Georgia finding no misconduct by the attorney. After the complaint was rejected by the State Bar of Georgia the attorney filed a motion in the Georgia Supreme Court asking that the Supreme Court of Georgia hold both John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen in contempt of court for violating the confidentiality provision of the State Bar of Georgia Rule 4-221.
March 18, 1999
State Bar of Georgia
Office of the General Counsel
800 The Hurt Building
50 Hurt Plaza
RE: J. Allen Grims1ey, Bar No.
312406
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear State Bar of Georgia,
Thirty-six years ago today, March 18, 1963, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark
decision Gideon v. Wainwright, a
ruling which required that persons too poor to afford legal counsel in criminal
cases be provided with an attorney to represent their interests. The Supreme
Court said that criminal defendants who were not represented by a lawyer were
denied a fundamental right guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Justice Hugo Black wrote in his opinion, "The
Constitution requires us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal
justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot
be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. The right of one
charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to
fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours."
Unfortunately, when the Supreme Court handed down its
Gideon opinion three and one-half
decades ago, it did not also set standards for those lawyers who would be
appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants. That responsibility has
largely been left to national and state bar associations, with some direction
coming from lower courts and legislatures.
As a result, many indigent criminal defendants, even
when technically represented by a lawyer appointed to them by the court, are in
reality not represented at all. Gideon v.
Wainwright might as well not even exist. Indeed, in some Georgia judicial
circuits, Gideon appears to have
never been taken seriously.
Such is the case here in Sumter County, Georgia --
and the Southwest Judicial Circuit -- when criminal defendants in Superior,
State or Juvenile Court are unlucky enough to have appointed as their lawyer Mr.
J. Allen Grimsley. It is Mr. Grimsley who is the subject of this
complaint to the Georgia Bar Association. We are asking that you investigate
thoroughly Mr. Grimsley's pitiful record of representation of his indigent
clients over the past several years. It is our belief that he has not
competently, ethically, or honestly represented those many individuals who he
has been appointed to represent in this judicial circuit, specifically here in
Sumter County.
The Prison & Jail Project, has, for the past
year, conducted its own investigation into J. Allen Grimsley's representation of
indigent criminal defendants. We are certain that Mr. Grimsley does not follow
the guidelines established by the Georgia Indigent Defense Council which dictate
what a lawyer must minimally do to properly represent an indigent client. But
moreover, our inquiry also indicates that Mr. Grimlsey may be in violation of
several standards the Georgia State Bar Rules and Regulations mandates lawyers
must adhere to if they are to remain in good standing with the Bar.
Mr. Grimsley communicates little -- if at all with
many of his court-appointed, indigent clients. If the client is in jail awaiting
trial, that defendant is likely to see Mr. Grimsley once, for only a few
minutes, before the case comes before a judge. In our discussions with Mr.
Grimsley's past and present clients, those one‑time meetings consisted of
little more than an introduction and the comment from Grimsley, "Let me see
if I can workout a deal with the district attorney." The next time the
jailed clients saw Mr. Grimsley was in the courtroom, and again only to spend a
few minutes with their lawyer as he attempted to convince them that pleading
guilty was in their best interest.
Similarly, our investigation revealed that
court-appointed defendants who were not locked up prior to trial also had a
difficult time communicating with Mr. Grimsley. Defendants we interviewed
maintained that Grimsley did not usually set up appointments with them, didn't
return their phone calls, seldom followed up on leads the defendants gave to him
regarding witnesses, alibis, etc. Again, most of these defendants only saw Mr.
Grimsley one time before their appointed time in court. In at least one
instance, an indigent defendant went eight
months without communicating with Mr. Grimsley, this despite the fact that
the defendant appeared in court on three separate occasions only to discover
that Mr. Grimsley was not present on that day.
Most disturbing is Mr. Grimsley's
"representation" of youthful offenders in Sumter County Juvenile
Court. We have documented a half-dozen instances where Mr. Grimsley had
no face-to-face contact at all with his young, court-appointed clients until
they appeared in juvenile court to be adjudicated!
Our investigation revealed that Mr. Grimsley seldom
comes to court prepared enough to truly advocate on behalf of his indigent
clients. Sometimes he appears in court unable to physically recognize his client
sitting in the audience or among prisoners. Several times during the course of
the Prison & Jail Project's investigation Mr. Grimsley has failed
to show up in court at all, occasionally forcing a judge to hold him in contempt
and levy against him a small fine. When he is present, it is obvious to even
the casual courtroom observer that Mr. Grimsley has not thoroughly investigated
his court-appointed cases and more often than not simply--by his
inaction--throws his client to the "mercy" of the court. Seldom does
Mr. Grimsley offer sentencing alternatives to the judge, nor is he able to
discuss his client's personal history with the court. Many times Mr. Grimsley
seems to be prosecuting his client and
working against his client's best interests when he openly ridicules or
belittles the individual he has been appointed to represent! It is obvious that
Mr. Grimsley is mostly contemptuous of his impoverished clients and their
predicaments.
Our investigation reveals that Mr. Grimsley
apparently does not follow his indigent clients' expressed directives to
represent them fully and to the best of his ability. In addition to his failing
to properly investigate the cases and interview witnesses, examine evidence,
etc., Mr. Grimsley files few motions with the court which could possibly benefit
his clients' defense or gain their freedom... We have interviewed a number of
Mr. Grimsley's former clients who insist that Grimsley consistently ignored
their requests for pre-trial legal assistance and instead continued to push them
to plead guilty. Defendants represented by Mr. Grimsley insist that if you are
not willing to plead guilty Mr. Grimsley “shuts down” and exhibits an
unwillingness to pursue the case further.
Because J. Allen Grimsley is appointed by the Sumter
County Indigent Defense Panel to represent indigent defendants, he is required
to submit expense vouchers which detail the amount of time he's spent on each
appointed case. We have examined a number of these expense vouchers Mr. Grimsley
has submitted to the Indigent Defense Panel clerk, and are not convinced that
these vouchers are always accurate. In ten months' time last year, Mr. Grimsley
billed Sumter County for more than $20,000 worth of indigent defense legal work.
Our examination of the vouchers Mr. Grimsley submitted during this time period
indicates that he has, in several instances, possibly billed the county twice
for the same case; billed twice for the time involved in making one telephone
call; billed the County for representation when the client was in fact being
represented by another lawyer; and several other discrepancies. It appears that
Mr. Grimsley's vouchers have never been seriously examined or questioned by
those responsible for approving the amount of money he claims he's owed by
Sumter County.
The Prison & Jail Project's investigation into J.
Allen Grimsley's behavior as an indigent defender in Sumter County certainly
raises some troubling questions about his competency as a lawyer and whether or
not he provides his appointed clients with effective assistance. Because we
understand that the State Bar of Georgia does not investigate "ineffective
assistance" claims against lawyers, we are today simultaneously filing a
complaint against Mr. Grimsley with the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, which
monitors court appointed attorneys and counties' indigent defense systems.
But we feel strongly that our investigation into Mr.
Grimsley's conduct with his court-appointed clients also begs for a State Bar
investigation into whether this lawyer has violated specific standards of
professional responsibility which would then require the Georgia State Bar to
commence disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Grimsley. Specifically, we believe
Mr. Grimsley has possibly violated several of the State Bar of Georgia's
"Discipline and Standards of Conduct Rule 4‑102(d)": Standard
4, which states that a lawyer "shall not engage in illegal professional
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or willful misrepresentation";
Standard 31, which states that "a lawyer shall not enter into
an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee"; Standard
33, which states that "a lawyer shall not enter into a business
transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the
client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the
protection of the client.. "; Standard
43, which states that "a lawyer shall not handle a matter which he
knows or should know that he is clearly incompetent to handle without
associating with him a lawyer whom he reasonably believes to be competent to
handle it"; Standard 44, which
states "a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of his
client in effect willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter
entrusted to him"; Standard 50,
which states "in presenting a matter to a court ... a lawyer shall not
engage in undignified, discourteous or disruptive conduct which‑ is
degrading to the court..."; and Standard
56, which states that "a lawyer shall not suppress any evidence that he
or his client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce".
It is intolerable, we think, in a state which
proclaims equal justice under the law as one of its ideals, that anyone should
be handicapped because they are poor and wind up being defended by a lawyer who
has no intent of representing his indigent clients as is required by the U.S.
and Georgia constitutions. We therefore urge the Georgia State Bar to
investigate J. Allen Grimsley's behavior and.to take the qppropriate action to
ensure that Mr. Grimsley is held accountable for what we feel are violations of
the Bar's "Rules of Professional Conduct." Not to investigate Mr.
Grimsley's particularly pathetic brand of indigent defense lawyering would send
the disturbing message that Gideon no longer stands for the great
principle that the poor are entitled to the same type of justice as those who
have money and are able to hire a lawyer.
The Prison & Jail Project believes that every
criminal defense lawyer, whether he or she is making $800 an hour or $80 an hour
for their work, whether they are representing a corporate boss or a
drug-addicted check forger, has a moral and ethical responsibility to represent
their client proudly, without resentment at an unfair burden, sure of the
support needed to make an adequate defense.
Attorney at law J. Allen Grimsley does not meet those
or many other standards as an indigent defender.
Thank you very much for your attention to our
request.
Sincerely,
S/
S/
Tim Mellen
John Cole Vodicka