Perceptions about Court-Appointed and Privately-Retained Attorney Representation: (How) Do They Differ?

Since Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), discussions about and research on the dichotomy between court-appointed and privately-retained attorneys have been pervasive, most frequently casting court-appointed attorneys in a negative light (e.g., work for the “state,” overworked and under-resourced) relative to their privately-retained counterparts (e.g., work for the “client,” autonomous and self-sufficient). In our survey, we re-visit these perceptions and include an exploratory experimental test in which we varied attorney resumes by attorney type. Consistent with prior research, participants had more positive attitudes of privately-retained attorneys and believed that they were more likely to generate favorable case outcomes than court-appointed attorneys. These attitudes were informed by participants’ perceptions about the attorneys’ resource amounts (caseload considerations, time, and energy), questions of adversarial allegiance, and sentiments of respect and altruism. In the experimental test, there were no differences in attorney ratings between participants “represented” by a public defender and those “represented” by a private defense attorney; rather, it was when asked to compare types of attorneys did these attitudes diverge. Overall, these results suggest that negative attitudes of court-appointed attorneys are somewhat engrained; however, there is now an increasing awareness of the systemic constraints that court-appointed attorneys face, as well as an appreciation for the work they do for indigent and under-served populations and society.