NCJ Number
138101
Journal
Criminal Law Forum Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: (Autumn 1991) Pages: 85-103
Date Published
1991
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article examines issues in the seizure of attorney fees under forfeiture law that stems from U.S. law, the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ("UN Drug Convention") and the Council of Europe's forfeiture provisions in the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds From Crime ("Laundering Convention").
Abstract
In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly held in companion cases that prosecutors could include defense attorney fees as forfeitable assets under Federal statutes that permit pretrial seizure of assets. In February 1990 the United States ratified the UN Drug Convention, and the United States was a participant in the Council of Europe's Laundering Convention. It is unsettled under both conventions whether or not the drafters considered attorney fees to be seizable assets and whether attempts to seize fees as "proceeds" will survive scrutiny under developing concepts of the right to counsel in international human rights law. In addressing these issues, this article concludes that the exemption language of both the UN Drug Convention and the Laundering Convention excludes defense attorney fees from seizure. The author further argues that even if attorney fees are not exempted, an array of human rights provisions, some of which are enforceable by attorneys from the United States in the European Court of Human Rights, would combine to defeat any attempt to seize such fees, regardless of the source. 78 footnotes