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