A relatively small group of attorneys, some of them old friends and all financial backers of judges handing out work, regularly receives close to half of all the tax-funded appointments to represent the poor in the juvenile courts, a Houston Chronicle analysis has found.
The system, criticized as cronyism by some, has made several attorneys between $100,000 and $200,000 a year on the public dime, according to county payment records from January 2005 to February 2008. It also has saddled a handful, including a few who take outside jobs, with caseloads exceeding the recommended number.
Some lawyers who seek a share of the work say local juvenile judges have found loopholes in a state law passed seven years ago meant to take the favoritism out of the appointment process. And some parents complain of lawyers who don't return phone calls, continually reset hearings or pressure their children to plead guilty to crimes they say they didn't commit.
Court-appointed attorneys given the most cases argue that talent and tenacity get them more work. All three judges in the juvenile courts, which see cases involving kids who are abused or in trouble with the law, defend the system and deny playing favorites. When not relying on a random computer system to pick attorneys, each says, he chooses the best attorney for the job.
"All the people who practice in these courts, everybody has known each other for years and years," said state District Judge Mike Schneider. "And you have a feeling of who does what."
But criticism is mounting. In March, state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, called for a public defender officer for all the courts in Harris County, pointing out that this is the only major urban area in the nation without one. Harris County Commissioners Court agreed to study this issue.
And late last month, a report by a national juvenile justice group studying the county's overbooked juvenile offender system found fault with the juvenile courts in Harris County.
"Defense appears to be lacking here," John Rhoads, a consultant with the group, told a roundtable of officials, including County Judge Ed Emmett.
Here's the beef:
All three juvenile court judges have been accused, privately at least, of favoring longtime friends or campaign contributors when appointing lawyers to represent the poor.
But Shelton and Phillips bear the brunt of criticism. Both received more than 90 percent of their campaign contributions from those they appoint; Schneider took in about 74 percent from these lawyers, according to a Chronicle analysis of contributions since 2005.
Mark Sandoval, an attorney appointed almost entirely in Sheltons' court, has also represented Shelton's wife in a lawsuit related to a fatal car crash involving their daughter, who was convicted of intoxicated manslaughter late last year. Sandoval, who did not return calls for comment, continues to get appointments despite being twice suspended between 1997 and 2000 by the State Bar of Texas for professional misconduct.
And two of the courts' top earners, Sprott and Glenn Devlin, who together earned $1 million from taxpayers since 2005, are longtime friends of Phillips and Shelton. Devlin was Phillips' campaign treasurer and former law partner. And each year during baseball season another top earner, attorney Gary Polland, lets Phillips sit in his seats near home plate for a dozen or so games. The judge says he always repays Polland for the cost of the tickets and has taken pains — including limiting all donations to his campaign to $500 per person — to erase any appearance of impropriety.
For his part, Shelton says he gets no joy from his appointment powers and plans to study public defender offices in other cities. All three judges deny any correlation between contributions and appointments.
In a graphic accompanying the newspaper article, we are told that $75,000 in campaign contributions over three years resulted in almost $4 million in court fees for ten select attorneys.
Not a bad investment.
We may ask whether the problem is the behavior of the officials or the preservation of a system that allows for these relationships to develop and persist.
