Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I am a criminal defense lawyer. If my client rejects a plea offer, many times the judge colloquies the criminal defendant about the plea. Oftentimes, the district attorneys will insist that the colloquy takes place, and sometimes defense lawyers do too. Is there anything wrong with this?
December 07, 2023 at 02:08 PM
12 minute read
Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton. Courtesy photo Unless there are attorney-client privilege issues, colloquies on plea offers are fine.
I am a criminal defense lawyer. If my client rejects a plea offer, many times the judge colloquies the criminal defendant about the plea. Oftentimes, the district attorneys will insist that the colloquy takes place, and sometimes defense lawyers do too. Is there anything wrong with this?
Plea colloquies have been around for a long time, but not as long as most lawyers think. In the '70s and '80s, maybe early '90s, there was rarely a colloquy by the judge about a plea except in the most extraordinary cases. In the last 20 to 25 years, particularly on serious criminal cases, it is very unusual if the judge doesn't colloquy a criminal defendant at the start of the trial whether there was a plea offer, what was it, and was it conveyed to the individual, and do they want it, or do they reject it? Similarly, this is a colloquy about whether a criminal defendant wishes to testify or not, or have witnesses present, which is often asked once the prosecution case has ended. That was not always done, but is now asked on a regular basis by many trial judges. The question is, is it proper to do so, and should there be such an inquiry?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
Trending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Monday Newspaper
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-98
- 4'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 511th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
