Please Do Not Reply To This Email. 

Public Comments on Restrictions on Legal Assistance with Respect to Criminal Proceedings:========

Title: Restrictions on Legal Assistance with Respect to Criminal Proceedings
FR Document Number: 2013-26102
RIN: 
Publish Date: 11/4/2013 12:00:00 AM

Submitter Info:
First Name:  M.
Last Name:  O'Brien
ZIP/Postal Code:  80210
Email Address:  mobrien14@law.du.edu
Comment:  	I support the adoption of this proposed rule because it addresses a need for effective assistance of criminal defense counsel in tribal jurisdictions, while protecting the autonomy of LSC-funded organizations.  A legal services organization itself will be best suited to determine whether undertaking criminal defense representation is 1) feasible in light of the organization’s existing financial constraints, and 2) consistent with the organization’s primary mission to provide civil legal services.
	Effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings is a cause that certain LSC-funded tribal law organizations will find consistent with their existing goals.  On the other hand, the proposed rule recognizes the concerns faced by LSC-funded organizations appointed to represent defendants in criminal matters, and affords organizations discretion to evaluate the efficacy of such an undertaking.  
        Importantly, providing criminal defense counsel must not come at a cost to the accused’s right to effective assistance of counsel.  For example, if organizations self-identify as “victim-focused” and lack the concern, interest, or experience to represent an individual accused of domestic violence, it is best the organization not avail itself for such appointments.  Nor should providing criminal defense counsel come at the cost to a LSC-funded organization’s core mission. The particular organization is best positioned to foresee any financial or ethical conflict in taking on criminal cases while still providing the civil legal services for which the organization was founded.  
	Underlying this proposed rule is a need for increased funding for indigent representation in criminal proceedings, both in tribal jurisdictions and elsewhere.  This proposed rule does not come anywhere near resolving that need (nor does it claim to), but it does remove certain restrictions upon LSC-funded organizations that do have the means and desire to undertake such representation. 


	I support the adoption of this proposed rule because it addresses a need for effective assistance of criminal defense counsel in tribal jurisdictions, while protecting the autonomy of LSC-funded organizations.  A legal services organization itself will be best suited to determine whether undertaking criminal defense representation is 1) feasible in light of the organization’s existing financial constraints, and 2) consistent with the organization’s primary mission to provide civil legal services.
	Effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings is a cause that certain LSC-funded tribal law organizations will find consistent with their existing goals.  On the other hand, the proposed rule recognizes the concerns faced by LSC-funded organizations appointed to represent defendants in criminal matters, and affords organizations discretion to evaluate the efficacy of such an undertaking.  
        Importantly, providing criminal defense counsel must not come at a cost to the accused’s right to effective assistance of counsel.  For example, if organizations self-identify as “victim-focused” and lack the concern, interest, or experience to represent an individual accused of domestic violence, it is best the organization not avail itself for such appointments.  Nor should providing criminal defense counsel come at the cost to a LSC-funded organization’s core mission. The particular organization is best positioned to foresee any financial or ethical conflict in taking on criminal cases while still providing the civil legal services for which the organization was founded.  
	Underlying this proposed rule is a need for increased funding for indigent representation in criminal proceedings, both in tribal jurisdictions and elsewhere.  This proposed rule does not come anywhere near resolving that need (nor does it claim to), but it does remove certain restrictions upon LSC-funded organizations that do have the means and desire to undertak