Brief of Eight Ethics, Criminal Defense and Public Interest Institutions and Associations as Amicus Curiae Supporting Contemnor-Appellant’s Appeal of the Municipal Court’s Contempt Conviction.

Argument: Appellant, a public defender, was appointed to represent a defendant the day before a court hearing. The “hearing” turned out to be the client’s trial, and appellant refused to try the case unprepared, for which the trial judge held in in contempt and sanctioned him with three days in jail, a $250 fine and court costs. Amici argued that one of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession is the ethical requirement that no lawyer take a case when unable to provide competent and diligent representation.

Amicus curiae brief the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union is support of petitioner.

Argument: Providing counsel to an indigent individual facing jail time in a civil contempt hearing is essential to prevention of wrongful incarceration. Indigent contemnors lack the courtroom skills to effectively represent themselves in complex proceedings; presence of counsel helps to ensure that only willful contemnors are incarcerated. The Supreme Court should provide clear guidance to the states that the Constitution requires appointment of counsel whenever personal liberty is threatened; appointment of counsel for alleged contemnors will ensure due process and help prevent wrongful incarcerations without imposing a significant burden upon the states.

Brief of Amicus Curiae The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Contemnor-Appellant.

Argument: The Circuit Court's application of the Illinois rules deprives indigent clients of their fundamental right to conflict-free counsel solely on the basis of financial status in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. The right to conflict-free counsel is a fundamental constitutional right. Fundamental constitutional rights may not be denied bases on an inability to pay. The failure to apply similar conflict of interest standards to clients of privately retained attorneys and clients of the Cook County Public Defender's office deprives the Public Defender's clients of their fundamental right to conflict-free counsel. African-American and Latino individuals are likely to bear the brunt of the constitutional violation at issue here.