Why Did Casey Anthony Lose Another Attorney?

Although Bull Stopper does not have a Facebook account and cannot access Facebook pages, long-time reader nums24 was kind enough to provide Linda Kenney Baden’s Facebook-posted comments concerning her withdrawal from the defense team of Casey Anthony.  Nums24’s comment with Ms. Baden’s statement may be found at the following link.

https://bullstopper.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/is-jose-baez-frightened-of-spicy-peanuts/

Due to the length of her statement, this article will focus only upon the first paragraph.  Future articles will concentrate on additional bite-size pieces.

“On Friday, October 22, 2010 I filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Casey Anthony in her Florida indictment for death penalty murder. As a result of my involvement with these types of cases, it is my viewpoint that a nationwide overhaul of the system must occur involving both expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers in death penalty cases and multi-state credit for out of state pro bono time to fulfill a lawyer’s public service obligations.”

“On Friday, October 22, 2010 I filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Casey Anthony in her Florida indictment for death penalty murder.” – True statement.  Notice the strength demonstrated through the use of “I”.  Ms. Baden performed this action, no other.  Ms. Baden filed, the decision to withdraw is hers.  The word “withdraw” rather than “resign” or other word is interesting because “withdraw” carries a flavor of retreat or defeat.  “Death penalty murders” appears sensitive because the words “death penalty” are extra, not needed to describe the indictment or the charged crime.  Ms. Baden wishes to remind her readers Ms. Anthony is charged with a death penalty offense.

“As a result of my involvement with these types of cases” – Ms. Baden has been previously involved with “these types of cases” and her “involvement” has led to a “result”.  When Ms. Baden gets involved in “these types of cases”, she causes something to happen.  What kind of cases are “these types of cases”?  We do not know, but we do know Ms. Baden is close to them by the use of the word “these”.  Ms. Anthony’s case falls into multiple categories as Ms. Baden classifies it as part of “these types”, multiple types.

“it is my viewpoint” – The result of Ms. Baden’s “involvement” is her “viewpoint”.  Ms. Baden sees things differently from others because of her previous involvement in “these types of cases”.  Others will see her upcoming claim differently because they do not share her “viewpoint”.

“that a nationwide overhaul of the system must occur” – Sensitivity and distancing to this claim are noted by the use of “that”, a distancing word.  This is Ms. Baden’s “viewpoint”, but she is not comfortable with it, which she also noted for us in the grammatical construction “it is my viewpoint”, a distancing from saying “my viewpoint is”.

“nationwide overhaul of the system” – Ms. Baden has moved from “her Florida indictment” to a “nationwide overhaul”.  What “system” needs a “nationwide overhaul”?  We do not know.  Ms. Baden was speaking about state legal systems, not the federal legal system, but she has now applied her results from her involvement in these types of cases, state cases, to the nation.

“must occur” – Ms. Baden states the “nationwide overhaul” is a necessity.

“involving both expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers in death penalty cases” – “Both” indicates there are two parts to Ms. Baden’s required “nationwide overhaul”.  The first part is “expenses for out of state pro bono lawyers”.  What does this mean?  Does it mean airlines and hotels and four-star restaurants should discount their services for pro bono attorneys in order to eliminate “expenses”?  Does it mean pro bono attorneys should change their practices and dine in lesser quality establishments in order to not rack up “expenses”?  We do not know.  Since Ms. Baden listed in her motion to withdraw the lack of funds to pay her expenses in defending Ms. Anthony, we presume Ms. Baden refers to the state of Florida’s rules which result in no payment of expenses to “out of state pro bono lawyers” by only allowing in state attorneys to be paid for expenses.  Could the states be those whose viewpoints differ from Ms. Baden’s?  Could the states have legitimate reasons for only paying the expenses of in state attorneys which do not include the personal reasons Ms. Baden has for demanding a “nationwide overhaul of the system”?

“and multi-state credit for out of state pro bono time to fulfill a lawyer’s public service obligations” – This is the second of Ms. Baden’s reasons which demand a “nationwide overhaul”.  Ms. Baden has a problem with the way in which her state applies it’s rules as to what does and does not qualify for credit as pro bono time for her personally as an attorney.  Ms. Baden has “public service obligations” and her defense of Ms. Anthony did not count towards the fulfillment of her obligations.  First, Ms. Baden implied the state of Florida needed to overhaul it’s legal system because they would not pay her expenses as an out of state attorney.  Now, Ms. Baden implies problems exist within her state’s legal system.  Who determines which pro bono service is credited and which is not?  Those with viewpoints other than Ms. Baden.  Could those others have legitimate reasons for not counting out of state service?  We do not know because Ms. Baden addresses only her own viewpoint.

Order is important.  Ms. Baden first addresses her filing of the motion to withdraw, then moves to the topic of overhauling the nationwide system.  The most important factors for Ms. Baden in her decision to withdraw from the “representation” (not defense) of Casey Anthony are the same as the reasons the nationwide system requires an overhaul.  If these reasons were not the same, Ms. Baden would not have assigned them to positions of importance within the first paragraph of her statement.

The most important reason for Ms. Baden’s withdrawal concerns expenses for out of state attorneys.  Ms. Baden does not want to donate more to the defense of Casey Anthony than her time.  Ms. Baden does not want to donate funds.  Ms. Baden does not view the payment of expenses as part of her pro bono work, the payment of expenses is for someone else to donate.  The nationwide system requires overhaul in order to require someone other than Ms. Baden pay Ms. Baden’s expenses.  This must be a new problem for Ms. Baden as she was not concerned with expense payments prior to Ms. Anthony being declared indigent, even though Ms. Baden’s services have always been pro bono.

The second most important reason for Ms. Baden’s withdrawal is her defense of Ms. Anthony does not decrease the in state pro bono time Ms. Baden is obligated to provide.  This was not a concern for Ms. Baden while she represented Ms. Anthony last year, but now it is the second most important reason for withdrawal.

We have learned Ms. Baden made the decision to withdraw from representing Ms. Anthony.

We have learned Ms. Baden withdrew from representing Ms. Anthony because Ms. Baden will not pay her own expenses and because such representation does not reduce her personal commitment to pro bono work within her own state, meaning there is no personal or professional benefit to Ms. Baden from continued representation.

We have learned the concerns which could lead to withdrawal of a pro bono attorney change when a defendant is shifted from self-funded to indigent status despite the status of the attorney as “pro bono” remaining unchanged.