Atlanta Pro Bono Habeas
Richard Caplan LeClairRyan richard. caplan @ leclairryan. com
THE PROVISION OF PRO BONO SERVICES by attorneys is a professional responsibility, baked into Rule 6.1 of both the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and the American Bar Association’ s Model Rules. Different lawyers take on this responsibility in different ways and amounts. For example, some use the strengths they already possess, while others devote their time and energy to help out in an area separate and apart from their normal work.
And then there are those who do pro bono death penalty work: a category all its own. Often this involves chilling, difficult facts; an endless procedural thicket at the confluence of criminal and civil law; enormous amounts of research and detective
work; and planning for a case that can easily take a decade. The topnotch talent at Georgia’ s Federal Defender Office and groups like Georgia Appellate Resource Center are seemingly indefatigable and do incredible work. In addition, many attorneys, including members of the Atlanta Bar Association, join in to help.
Death penalty work has always been a great challenge. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996( AEDPA) was signed into law on April 24, 1996 by President Bill Clinton. Even a brief overview of its key provisions would be beyond the scope of this short piece, as would an analysis of the ensuing two decades of case law, including numerous U. S. Supreme Court decisions and a recent 6 – 5 en banc decision from the Eleventh Circuit, Wilson v. Warden, in August 2016. Suffice it to say that it is hard to do this work full time, let alone to do it on the side.
Shortly after AEDPA became law, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Robert Benham( at the time Chief Justice), brought attention to the acute need for help regarding people sentenced to death. In August
“ You don’ t have a case where there’ s more at stake.”
1996, Justice Benham wrote a letter asking area law firms to volunteer. He noted that several persons under sentence of death in Georgia were in“ immediate need of legal representation.” Many in the Atlanta Bar took up the mantle to help at that time. Some have never put it down.
One of those people is Bob Edwards, a partner at Troutman Sanders whose work includes representation of companies regarding antitrust, competition, and economic regulation matters. Mr. Edwards recalls the letter from Justice Benham asking for the firm’ s help with capital post-conviction cases. He has done habeas pro bono work since that time: now 20 years.
Mr. Edwards was quick to deflect credit from himself to his firm.“ It’ s a firm thing, not an individual thing,” he told me. He also noted that his work was not in any way a politicized act. Rather he participates for the simple reason that the system could have a serious break down if there was not help.
When I asked Mr. Edwards what he had learned, he noted a number of things. This includes the role of advocates in the habeas context, such as making sure that the Court understands the broad social issues regarding sentencing. He also added that some of the difficult issues he has faced in handling these cases and conducting research for them— intergenerational mental illness, horrible poverty and abuse— will frustratingly likely be repeated until there is a sustained effort to address the underlying issues, such as poverty.
I also spoke with John Hutchins, a commercial litigator at LeClairRyan who leads the firm’ s Privacy and Data Security Group and handles complex business disputes, usually somehow touching on issues related to information technology. His work on death penalty cases began around 2006, and he has been engaged in pro bono habeas work essentially without a break since that time.
24 October 2016