Paper: Houston Chronicle
Date: THU 10/12/2000
Section: A
Page: 21 Metfront
Edition: 3 STAR
 

Lawyers get easier access to inmates / County changes policy after complaint

By KELLY PEDERSEN
Staff

With the threat of a federal injunction hanging overhead, Harris County agreed Wednesday to change a policy limiting attorneys' access to clients in the county jail.

The policy, an oral agreement adopted in August, stated that only attorneys listed in the Justice Information Management System - a database of attorneys assigned to defendants - could visit clients in the Harris County Jail.

Lawyers not listed in JIMS were required to obtain a court order to visit an inmate - a policy that some say gives an unfair advantage to county prosecutors.

"It was essentially a system of delays designed to help the prosecution and hurt criminal defense attorneys," said civil-rights lawyer Randall Kallinen, who filed the complaint against the county Friday in U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal's court. "And it prevented inmates from promptly speaking to an attorney of their choosing."

As a result of the complaint, attorneys for Harris County agreed Wednesday to adopt new guidelines for attorney-inmate visitation.

The new policy - which is nearly identical to the county's original policy before the changes in August - states that only an inmate's consent and an attorney's proof of State Bar membership are required for visitation.

Assistant County Attorney Nick Turner said the now-rescinded policy was designed to prevent defense attorneys from entering the jail and soliciting clients.

"Prior to adoption of the oral policy, we were getting complaints from the defense bar that lawyers were trying to solicit inmates," Turner said. "The purpose of the policy was to curb these unethical actions and to cut the costs to the county brought about by illegitimate visits."

However, Turner said the county decided to rescind its oral policy on grounds that the Harris County Sheriff's Department does not have the authority to police lawyers' ethics.

"We agreed in the end that any savings provided by the policy were being eaten up on the other end to approve lawyers to visit clients," he said.