United States v. Darrell E. Lee

On this appeal the questions are whether an attorney who filed a motion for substitution of counsel with supporting documents committed criminal contempt of court in the presence of the court and whether the procedure by which he was found in contempt and sentenced was in error. Because we find that Mr. Lee did not commit contemptuous acts in the presence of the court, we hold that the district court improperly imposed punishment summarily. Mr. Lee’s conviction is reversed.

FACTS

On December 9, 1982, William Thayer, an employee of the defendant, was appointed to represent one of nineteen American Indian defendants indicted for conspiracy to violate federal fish and game laws. In response to this appointment, Mr. Thayer moved to withdraw from the ease, and Darrell Lee, the defendant, filed a motion for substitution of counsel. Mr. Lee stated that (1) his employee was not qualified to adequately represent his assigned client due to his limited trial experience and lack of knowledge of Indian law and (2) this representation would be an unacceptable financial burden on him and his employee.

In support of his motion, Mr. Lee stated that his employee had been refused the use of Mr.…

concurring:

I concur but write separately to note an aspect of this case not discussed by the majority. I address Lee’s bitter complaints about the fees paid to counsel appointed to represent indigents in federal court. See also Darrell E. Lee Law Office v. State, 99 Wash.2d 270 , 661 P.2d 136 (1983).

Lee says that reasonable compensation is necessary to ensure adequate representation of indigents. He contends that financial hardship will cause appointed counsel to represent clients less diligently. He says that inadequate compensation constitutes a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility, by making the appointed attorney’s financial interests adverse to those of the client.

Lee’s contentions fly in the face of the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Wash.Code of Professional Responsibility EC 2-29.

He has ignored the oath taken on admission to the Washington State Bar:

An appointed attorney’s financial interests do not outweigh the interests of indigent clients in legal representation.

720 F.2d 1049 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Darrell E. LEE, Defendant/Appellant. No. 83-3017. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 1983. Decided Nov. 17, 1983. William Redkey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee. Darrell E. Lee, Lee, Thayer & Schauermann, Vancouver, Wash., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before WRIGHT, PREGERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: 1 On this appeal the questions are whether an attorney who filed a motion for substitution of counsel with supporting documents committed criminal contempt of court in the presence of the court and whether the procedure by which he was found in contempt and sentenced was in error. Because we find that Mr. Lee did not commit contemptuous acts in the presence of the court, we hold that the district court improperly imposed punishment summarily. Mr. Lee's conviction is reversed. FACTS 2 On December 9, 1982, William Thayer, an employee of the defendant, was appointed to represent one of nineteen American Indian defendants indicted for conspiracy…