Legal News

Goodbye DeGuerin: Stanford Gets a Public Defender

By Ashby Jones

Who knows, maybe Allen Stanford will emerge from his current troubles in a year or so happy, healthy and largely unscathed by the legal system’s slings and arrows. But for now, the hole into which he’s sliding seems ever-deepening.

When we last left our favorite resident of the Joe Corley Detention facility in Conroe, Texas, (here), questions loomed. The morning Stanford was slated to attend a hearing over his legal representation, he was rushed to the hospital to treat a racing pulse.

We got information on his medical status — turns out, he has a non-life threatening aneurysm in his leg.

And Tuesday, we got a little more information on the situation with Stanford’s lawyers. A federal judge in Houston allowed high-flying lawyer Dick DeGuerin to withdraw as Stanford’s lawyer and appointed him an attorney from the federal public defenders office, Michael Sokolow. Click here for the story, from the Houston Chronicle.

DeGuerin took on the Stanford matter about seven months ago in the hope of getting paid at some point down the line. But he never did. Stanford’s assets have been frozen, and his insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay.

Marjorie Meyers, the head of the federal public defender office in Houston, said she expects to ask the judge, David Hittner, to add private criminal defense attorney Kent Schaffer to the case as well.

Schaffer is a longtime criminal defense attorney in Houston with a federal and state practice who has handled numerous high-profile trials and has represented U.S. Rep. Craig Washington, Oscar Wyatt author Clifford Irving and late Houston Astros star Ken Caminiti.

Lawyers from the firm Patton Boggs were also in court, according to the Chron, but had no role in the hearing. That firm still has a pending motion asking to be heard on whether they might represent Stanford if he gets the money to pay him.

For those looking for a bit more information on the notion of asset freezes and lawyer-payments, check out this WSJ article from April.

At the time, Wayne State law professor Peter Henning said these situations highlight a clash of competing important principles. “On the one hand, people like the idea that defendants have lawyers when they’re accused of something,” he said. “On the other, you don’t want the thief to use money from the bank robbery to pay his lawyer. The question is how do you reconcile those?”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 15, 2009 (boomark / email).