Attorney's mindset that court wont approve funds, impedes attorney's ability to conduct an adequate criminal defense on the defendant's behalf.

"Dollar Wise Legal Foolish"

I’m writing this article in order to bring to your attention a grave practice being conducted in the courts, which diametrically opposes a defendant receiving a fair trial. I have conducted close to 100 criminal investigations, and never before have I submitted an invoice to the courts and had it reduced after the work was done, until now.

As much as I’m perturbed at not being fully paid for the work that I already performed (which the attorney approved), there’s a much larger issue here that undermines the ability of the investigator to conduct an adequate investigation on the defendant’s behalf and also impedes the attorney’s legal efforts. The problem is that a criminal investigation absolutely cannot be conducted for $500, which is the entry limit for attorneys to file a motion for funds for an investigator in some of the courts. Limiting a criminal investigator to $500 initial motion for funds means that the investigator has to stop his investigation mid-stream for fear that obtaining more funds will not be approved. This compromises the investigation due the information obtained in the field is often time sensitive and if not obtained when it’s available, it may not be available at all. So to stop an investigation mid-stream means that the witnesses tactfully approached who would normally provide information, given time to think it over, may change their mind. And that happens all too often!

So in the hundred or so criminal cases I’ve worked on, the fine criminal attorneys I work with virtually always ask for an initial motion of $1500-$2000. And quite often the investigations exceed the $2000, but I’m fortunately working with attorneys that really care about doing the best job they can for the clients, a moral quality I highly respect and value immensely. I’ve worked with many attorneys who don’t care about the quality of the services they provide, and are only interested in billable hours. I won’t work with them again. My conducting a thorough investigation on behalf of the defendant is looked at by these attorneys as a burden because they really don’t want to do the work and see my efforts as a real imposition (to their getting paid more billable hours on easier cases). They are in fact the pettifoggers who shouldn’t be allowed to practice and are unfortunately so much more prevalent in the legal field, than the really good attorneys, for which we are so lucky to have. For the most part those pettifoggers don’t use investigators. As an investigator, you may think I’m partial, but in my eyes, not to use an investigator on a criminal case is just reason for a rule 30 ineffective counsel appeal. I know my job and because I’m really good at what I do, I add great value to the criminal case investigation that the attorney would otherwise not have, and have a success rate of reducing sentences and not guilty findings far above the norm because of the in-depth investigations I conduct, which I take great pride in and have built a reputation for getting information others can’t (likely because their too lazy). When I was working in the insurance fraud field, I had the highest claim denial, subrogation liability scenarios generated and reduced loss pay ratios of any investigator I ever met, and there is good reason for that. I conduct thorough criminal investigations with the hope that the defendants will learn from the fear of just escaping some real jail time and will think twice about being in this position again. I’m a goody two shoes who wants to make a difference, “the money is secondary to me”. I applaud the court for scrutinizing the invoices to insure a thorough investigation did not include frivolous work for the purpose of over billing. But this is absolutely not the case in the recent hearing conducted on a motion for additional funds on work I had already performed, and after the hearing on the motion was reduced by $800.00. 

Might I suggest that limiting the attorney to a $500.00 limit on the initial motion for funds on a criminal case is actually supporting the unscrupulous pettifoggers and their at best “mediocre defenses” they provide the defendants as well as the investigators who are willing to conduct a mediocre investigation and work with these attorneys. “It’s just not my style”. It is in fact providing an easy way for attorneys to steal, and get paid for not doing their job by not providing an inadequate defense for their clients, which happens all too often.

I take great pride in the work that I do. My goal is to conduct a relentless investigation so the attorney goes to court armed with every iota of information that will enable them to negotiate for the defendant from a position of power and confidence. Because of the thoroughness of my in-depth investigations, I have built a reputation with some outstanding defense attorneys I work with as having a success rate of reducing sentences and not guilty findings far above the norm. That’s why I am getting much work directly from the incarcerated inmates, because they know I’m a beast in the field, and I get uncommon results. Such is the case in a recent investigation in the Commonwealth Vs Aneudi Sanabria, Docket # 1785CR0014 in Worcester Superior Court, a stabbing incident in which my investigation resulted in a nolle pros, where charges were dropped and the defendant was then released from the Worcester County House of Corrections. That was my paycheck, “an innocent guy released after 3 months in jail”.

Lastly, prior to finishing my investigation on the case in question, I was informed by the defense attorney assigned to the case, that I should not do anything else, because it’s too hard to get money from this particular court and they will not approve it. Unfortunately, there were two more witnesses that should have been interviewed by me on this case, and were not because I was told the funds would not be approved. I was told to stop all further investigation. “That means that the attorney feels she can only go so far with her legal defense efforts also”. And after the fact, the defense attorney’s feelings were obviously justified, because the motion for funds she submitted for $1804.20 for the work I already performed was reduced to $1000.00.

Quite frankly, if I have to take a case knowing I have to conduct a shoddy investigation, I’d rather not do the work. Note that this has never happened to me before, so this is issue is not widespread, but is a problem specific to a few courts.

I am swamped with work, so my time is also of the essence, but I will be in court to fight this, as I feel this issue is much larger than my need to get paid, but really weighs heavily on the concept of, “Justice for all”.