“Grossly Incompetent” Wisconsin Lawyer Booted From Murder Case

October 3, 2016 (Fault Lines) — A disaster has been temporarily averted in a Wisconsin courthouse now that a judge has removed a defense attorney from a murder case because she was found to be “grossly incompetent.” The Wisconsin State Journal reports on the case, and the following exchange occurred between the judge and the criminal defense immigration attorney:

Berz began to question Clemment about her responses to motions made by prosecutors after suspecting that Clemment didn’t understand what was meant by certain legal terms and concepts. To some of Berz’s questions, Clemment simply answered, “I don’t know,” and when asked to cite legal authority on another, Berz noted that Clemment was using her smartphone to find an answer. Quizzed about other concepts, such as presenting an alibi defense, the admissibility of statements made by the victim to other witnesses, the rules for exclusion of witnesses, the character of the defendant and prior criminal records of witnesses, Berz said that Clemment gave incorrect answers. “I’m trying to find out if you’re the least bit competent to represent anyone at any kind of trial,” Berz told Clemment at one point. When Clemment answered at another point that a legal concept was “as simple as apple pie” without specifically answering Berz’s question about it, Berz remarked that that was “the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard come from the mouth of a defense attorney.”

Dennis Hassel is on trial for his life. He has been charged with first degree intentional homicide for the killing of Larry Erwing, and while Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853, his conviction would trigger a mandatory life sentence as per Wisconsin law. In other words, he will receive what one luminary has called the “slow death penalty.”

So the picture of Clemment doing research on her smartphone while being questioned by the judge, and at one point referring to one legal concept “as simple as pie” (it’s obvious she’s not familiar with Mencken), should outrage any defense attorney person who can appreciate what’s at stake for Hassel. Luckily, the judge caught wind of Clemment’s incompetence and took her off the case, there’s at least one ancient Roman philosopher–cum-lawyer that would find Clemment’s conduct criminal.

The article and Clemment’s website note that she specializes in immigration law, which is a distinct and separate specialty. There are some overlaps between immigration and criminal law, but that’s not enough for an immigration practitioner to take on a criminal case, let alone a homicide. It’s as if a career pediatrician signed on to perform a Lasik eye surgery on a patient when there’s the risk of the patient ending up blind plus cancer.

But that’s as far as the analogy to the medical profession goes. Yes, you may still end up with a lousy surgeon who leaves sponges inside you, just like you may end up with an attorney who pleads you out during arraignment, but the medical profession has two major advantages: residency requirements and specialty training. Those who come out of medical school have to go through a residency requirement, where they get to practice under the watchful eye of a more experienced physician/mentor. After that, they get to do their fellowship or specialty training, where they become the type of doctors they want to be.

There is no such thing in the legal profession, as any rookie lawyer can take on any case she wants right after she gets her bar license. Any fool who passed the bar exam can choose to take on a death penalty case right out of the gate. She can even pay a paltry sum to get a certificate that says she is one of the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers.” Shiny plaques+good old fashioned chicanery+clients who don’t know better=many lives ruined.

Seasoned trench warriors trial lawyers sometimes say the following about a lawyer who’s rarely been to court, let alone participated in a trial: “[insert incompetent’s name] couldn’t even find his way to the courthouse.” It turns out that Clemment couldn’t even find her way to the jailhouse to visit her client:

Clemment complained at the outset of the hearing that she had no opportunity to meet with Hassel because he is at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, serving a prison sentence for a prior crime. Berz, who was a criminal defense attorney for 30 years and a prosecutor before that, told Clemment that lawyers routinely make arrangements to visit their clients wherever they are incarcerated, and don’t wait until clients are transported to more convenient lockups.

By the time the Judge Berz was done with Clemment, she had determined that Clemment had violated several rules of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin: lack of legal competence, failure to diligently represent Hassel, and failing to communicate with him.

Remember that scene* from My Cousin Vinny where Joe Pesci’s character, a personal injury lawyer, stumbles over the easiest part of a criminal case, the arraignment? Unfortunately, this happens way more often that it should. Criminal defense neophytes make experienced practitioners cringe whenever they show up and can’t get through the most basic type of hearing.

This happens when lawyers decide to practice what’s called “door law” (“I’ll take any case that comes through the door”), and when non-specialists decide to venture into a criminal courthouse when times are tight and they need the dough, all to the detriment of their clients.

*The scene appears at the 33:30 mark.

Share this: Reddit

Email

Print

Facebook

LinkedIn

Google

Twitter

