In the New York Times, Adam Liptak has a Sidebar column on the remarkable story of Shon Hopwood. I have particular reasons to find the story compelling, as I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with Shon on briefs and I was clerking the Term that the Supreme Court decided Fellers. But it’s a really cool story either way: Sometimes a second chance makes all the difference.
-
Contact
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- C-K Faculty Blog
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- FedSoc Blog
- Former Chef
- Gavel to Gavel
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Make No Law (Institute for Justice)
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Ricochet
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- WLF Legal Pulse
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
debauched_sloth says:
I wonder whether he will he get a free pass despite having pretty clearly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing cert petitions for fellow prisoners. (That’s assuming state bar associations would find that writing briefs for other people to put their own names on constitutes unauthorized practice, which they surely would.)
Should Mr. Hopwood get a free pass because: (a) he seems to have been quite proficient; (b) the story was so heartwarming and fun that it would be bad PR to go after him now; (c) licensing lawyers probably provides few if any social benefits while imposing massive costs; or (d) some other reason?
Or maybe they should make an example out of him, pour encourager les autres. I’d sure love to read his pro se cert petition challenging an unauthorized practice beef.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:24 amgeorge weiss says:
hmm maybe a 1st amendment argument?
after all when you are not charging for the service it cannot be regulated as commercial speech and thus the government needs a compelling interest narrowly tailored to meet that goal.
given the special circumstances of a jailhouse litigant I’m not sure it passes scrutiny..particularly when its completely clear the person is not a lawyer.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:10 amRicardo says:
It seems that federal prison regulations allow jailhouse lawyering while some state statutes prohibit it. Since this guy was a federal prisoner, isn’t there a case that the federal regulation trumps whatever state law there is?
As a side-note, jailhouse lawyering seems to satisfy two goals. The first is that for intelligent inmates with an interest in the law, it relieves the stultifying boredom of a lengthy prison sentence. Second, G. Gordon Liddy pointed out that inmates rarely mess with lawyers in prison. Someone with good legal knowledge is going to find the biggest, meanest guy in the prison and offer his legal services in exchange for protection.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:33 amneurodoc says:
Wikipedia sez...“Many states in the U.S. have Jailhouse Lawyer Statutes, some of which exempt inmates acting as jailhouse lawyers from the licensing requirements imposed on other attorneys when they are helping indigent inmates with legal matters.” It doesn’t say what is in the “Jailhouse Lawyer Statutes” of those states which have them but don’t specifically exempt inmates acting as “jailhouse lawyers.”
Would anyone argue that former SG Waxman condoned that which was in fact illegal when he treated Hopwood as he would have someone admitted to the bar, or that the Supremes were snookered by Hopwood? I don’t know that Hopwood is a shoo-in to be admitted to law school and eventually be admitted to the bar, but if he fails, I doubt very much it will be because he once served as a “jailhouse lawyer,” assisting fellow inmates in preparing court filings.
I might have thought that Liptak would have devoted a little space to tell us what Hopwood was up to before he undertook to rob banks. For example, how far did he go in school and how well had he done? How did he get into bank robbing? What books in the law library did he use to educate himself? And who’s working on the movie script?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:45 amgeorge weiss says:
forgot to mention there was a case
johnson v. avery 393 us 483 that allows jailhouse lawyering when there is no reasonable alternative and the prisoner has a right to an attorney
problem with johnson in this situation is
a) there usually is no right to an attorney at the cert stage unless its on direct appeal not habeas. certainly not in civil prisoner suits regarding prison conditions or against attorneys for malpractice.
b) if it is on direct appeal or at a lower stage of habeas there is probably going to be a reasonable alternative (public defender-appointed attorney)
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:49 amKaonashi says:
As George stated above I think they’ll just be asking for a 1st amendment challenge if they go after him. It would be tough to go after the entire system of requiring lawyers to be licensed since the state definitely has an interest in making sure certain professions, such as doctors, meet certain standards and are recognized as meeting those standards but I think he can argue that the law is clearly too restrictive in this case.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:32 amimprovidently granted says:
Hopwood blogs at the Cockle Blog.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:52 amArkady says:
Stories like this only reinforce my belief that Moral Luck has a far more powerful effect on the course of our lives than we’d like to admit.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:49 amPhonon says:
His name is in the affidavit in the end...
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:58 ammikeyes says:
Standards for lawyering are not as clear cut as those in the health professions and some states still allow apprenticeships instead of law school. It has been pointed out many times that any intelligent person could pass a state bar exam using a good prep course. It has also been mentioned (ad nauseum, it seems) that law schools don’t prepare a person to take the bar exam.
As a physician I do have a general interest in keeping the professions closed, but it seems that the concern here is more about the letter of the law and not the spirit. If you had to hire this guy or Orly Taitz (who did go to law school and passed the CA bar) who would you hire?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:01 ampublic_defender says:
Jailhouse lawyering is tolerated because it’s generally less bad than the alternative, which would be an effective bar to the courthouse. Figuring out pleading requirements is unfortunately a challenge for many lawyers, let alone inmates with little education. Jailhouse lawyers can have weird theories, but they often can get a pleading in good enough shape to be considered. Most of their filings may be bunk, but courts can dismiss bunk arguments. But enough are valid to make it a practice worth keeping.
The real problem is that some courts don’t take “pro se” criminal cases seriously enough. I once jumped in on an appeal of a case a defendant had filed pro se. He had initially filed the wrong action, and the state supreme court denied relief solely on that basis. In denying relief, the state supreme court also shot down two of the State’s arguments.
The defendant then filed the precise type of action the state supreme court said he should file. His complaint was a little inartful, but it said absolutely everything it needed to say, and it was absolutely correct. The state’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss making precisely the two arguments that the supreme court said were wrong. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss citing those two arguments. On appeal, it was an easy win for me, but it should never have gotten that far. The trial court just wouldn’t take a valid argument seriously when it came from a pro se criminal defendant.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:24 amShon says:
Dear Volokh readers,
My assisting other inmates in prison does not fall under the unauthorized practice of law for a couple of reasons. First, the Supreme Court has said that prisons must allow prisoners the assistance of their fellow prisoners, unless they provide an alternative (i.e., paralegal or attorney to write their habeas motions). Second, I received no payment for my assistance. The Mercedes was a gift, received almost 7 years after I wrote the cert petition. Third, the federal prisons have somewhat condoned jailhouse lawyers and so have federal courts. I once filed a motion to act as counsel for a friend of mine filing a civil rights complaint over the lack of medical care he was receiving. While the district court would not allow it as a matter of discretion, he did recognize that other courts have allowed other prisoners to act as something close to standby counsel. And finally, very few attorneys will accept representation for a cert petition. Usually, after the direct appeal is finished, the appointed attorney drops the case, even when there are cert worthy issues. I have filed around 15 cert petitions where the appointed counsel basically abandoned the client.
Love everyone’s responses here. Much more intelligent than say “Above the Law.” Thank you.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:07 am“There Are No Second Acts In American Lives.” | Popehat says:
[...] Via Orin Kerr. [...]
public_defender says:
Shon’s successful cert petition is one more than 99.9% of laywers have won. My hat is off to you, sir.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:21 amSCOTUSblog » Tuesday round-up says:
[...] in 2008 and now plans to attend law school. Kashmir Hill of Above the Law and Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy also have coverage of the “jailhouse lawyer of the [...]
ArthurKirkland says:
A recent VC thread features impassioned defenses of Randy Weaver. The first comment on this VC thread finds fault with Shon Hopwood.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:52 amKanchou says:
As a county law librarian, this line really warms my heart.
AALL really should invite Mr. Hopwood to speak at Denver for its annual meeting in July.
Maybe the federal prisons are different, but from what I know, it’s very unlikely that there are much hand-on helps after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lewis v. Casey. Far too often, we are not humble enough to accept it’s library users’ intelligence, diligence and access to our collections that makes the difference, not our hand-on assistance.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:33 amChuck says:
There have been a number of brilliant jailhouse lawyers. The late Ben Rayborn, also a former bank robber, worked at Federal Defenders of San Diego after his release. Ben never became a lawyer, though he was far more skilled than many practitioners.
When asked why he studied law, Ben used to say: “They threw the book at me. I picked it up and read it.”
Here is more about Ben:
http://www.fdsdi.com/ben_rayborn.html
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:33 amMike McDougal says:
I’m not so sure about that. I’ve seen some huge messes made by self-represented parties. A minimum level of competency probably reduces those sorts of messes. Whether it’s a net benefit is a trickier question for another day.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:54 pmCockle Law Brief Printing, Co. Blog says:
[...] legal blogs have also taken note of Shon’s story. See SCOTUS Blog, Volokh Conspiracy, and Above the [...]
Tuck says:
“...the state definitely has an interest in making sure certain professions, such as doctors, meet certain standards and are recognized as meeting those standards...”
This would certainly explain the high regard in which the legal profession is held in this country.
Shon, congratulations. Good luck, although keep in mind your former partners in crime may have had a clearer moral compass than some of your current ones.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:55 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Shon, can you address these matters?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:09 pmDNJ says:
This is a wonderfully heart-warming story.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:29 pmCajun Girl 61 says:
I am in disbelief after reading this article. Here I am, an attractive, well-educated, law-abiding citizen, never get in trouble, and I work hard every day barely making ends meet. Here’s Shon Hopwood — robs banks, gets in prison for ten years, finds someone to marry not long after getting out and has a baby, and his buddy Fellers who he helped in prison gives him a Mercedes when he gets out. WHAT? Am I missing something, folks? How the hell did his buddy Fellers get the money to buy a car dealership to begin with? He just came out of prison. People like me who haven’t been in prison can’t even buy a car dealership much less get a Mercedes. What’s wrong with this picture? Seems like maybe the moral to this story is “Crime Pays.”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:35 pmArthurKirkland says:
Cajun girl:
Are you as outraged by people who committed crimes but were not caught, or were caught yet were released by law enforcement officials because of connections?
Are you as outraged by people who inherit their lives, and never earn an honest cent yet enjoy luxury, direct assets and influence society?
I see little cause to begrudge people who reform, who sacrifice for others and for the cause of American justice, who find a mate and mate.
I also suspect you are seeing more reason for outrage than exists. It was a twenty-year-old Mercedes, likely worth less than a three-year-old Hyundai. Developing a used car dealership over a period of several years does not strike me as remarkable. I am confident that if you are an attractive, well-educated, law-abiding citizen, you could own and operate a used car lot within two or three years by devoting your attention to that goal.
Finally, many people are imprisoned for drug offenses. Which means they did little or nothing different from those who drank beer or sold wine (including most sacramental wine) during Prohibition, or had anal or oral sex in defiance of Bowers v. Hardwick, or possessed contraceptives before Griswold. I don’t know what Fellers did, but if it was a drug offense, I’m not surprised he has been more successful than many of his “law-abiding” fellow citizens, because in my view a drug conviction says more about the nanny-state prudes who like those laws than it does about anyone who violated them.
Good luck finding whatever you are looking for, Cajun Girl.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:33 pmCajun Girl 61 says:
My, Mr. Kirkland, it seems that you are on a crusade for criminals and their bad behavior. I have no reason to begrudge anyone, and you are misreading my blog. Why are you defending a former convict who operated out of laziness and lust for greed of big money? I could easily rob banks too, but I have integrity and know it isn’t right. Also, the Mercedes may have been 20 years old, but it was stated it was in pristine condition. That could easily have been a collector’s item. I doubt very seriously the Mercedes was worth the cost of a cheap Hyundai. I don’t see Hopwood as sacrificing anything. The people who sacrificed were the banks he and others robbed who took huge losses. I doubt Hopwood thought about those people when he was robbing them — only about himself and the money he wanted for doing nothing to earn it. The world doesn’t owe anybody anything, including Hopwood nor his fellow collaborators. I’m sorry, but drinking wine and beer is legal in this country, not possessing or selling drugs. It was not stated what Fellers did to land him in prison. You’re simply working off of speculation. Also, a person cannot just go out and buy a car dealership if they work hard, etc. It takes good credit and money backing you to acquire these things. There’s more to Fellers as to how he acquired that than meets the eye.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:55 pmdebauched_sloth says:
To be clear, I was not remotely faulting Mr. Hopwood — to the contrary, he sounds like a fantastic legal mind, and certainly far better than most of the lawyers I encounter in my job...as a lawyer.
Instead, I was simply trying to make the point that there are all sorts of people in desperate need of legal assistance who cannot afford a lawyer, and it seems odd to me to allow prisoners access to non-licensed legal help but not those other people. Also tacit (but apparently too tacit) in my post was a general sense of outrage towards a system that turns a blind eye to the very real likelihood that the interests primarily served by lawyer-licensing laws are those of licensed lawyers.
Personally, I’m thrilled that Mr. Hopwood’s fellow inmates had access to such a wonderful resource, but I am somewhat dismayed by the idea that one must be incarcerated in order to enjoy an unfettered right of access to counsel.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:34 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Cajun Girl 61, thank you for raising an issue that I was wondering about as well.
I have a related problem with this allegedly heart-warming story. What do the people whom Shon threatened think of all this? Did he ever compensate them for his crimes against them? It is nice that he may have turned his life around, but what about them?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:34 pmVincentN says:
Uh... you do realize what a 10 year prison sentence means, right?
The banks were most likely covered by their insurance. It was definitely wrong for them to be robbed but the idea that they suffered some horrible loss is absurd.
We agree on that. What are you whining about again then?
Maybe. Maybe not. Since we don’t know any of the circumstances, it sounds like you’re the one engaging in speculation. Is it really so shocking that criminals who serve their sentences and get out of jail can get better paying jobs than janitors or busboys?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:42 pmaaaaburn says:
The article didnt give many details but so what. No one is asking why you are so jealous. Hopwood did his time and made a better track in life. He made a good impression on people who want to return the favor. This guy is making a difference for more people than a good deal of lawyers do. Thats got be worth something.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:07 pmJazzi says:
Commit a crime and be rewarded. Is this the message that’s being sent? This is ridiculous.
We the “Tax payers” have taken care of this man, while he was in prison. Now we’re paying for him to pass the “Bar”? Or is his using money that he stole from one of his bank robberies?
He’s a felon. Does that matter?
How do the victims feel about this “compelling story”?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:16 pmVincentN says:
Who exactly has ‘rewarded’ him? Sounds like he gained his legal knowledge through his wits and effort. Or are you just against the idea of criminals making something of themselves once they get out of jail? Maybe you think that because he was a ‘bad’ person he should be living a miserable life for the rest of his life. Maybe you think it sucks that law-abiding citizens don’t get such nice outcomes.
One, life isn’t fair. Take it up with God if you have a complaint. Two, I’d rather have a former felon become a productive member of society and be an example to other felons instead of having him fall back into criminal ways.
Nobody was hurt in the bank robberies according to the article. I’m sure some people were really scared but it’d be sad if after 10 years they read this article and their first reaction is to be upset that Hopwood didn’t get lethal injection or isn’t living in a cardboard box somewhere.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:33 pmtroll_dc2 says:
It is nice, of course, that he seems to have reformed and become a productive member of society, but you should not understate the harm that he did. Perhaps nobody was hurt physically, but if you have ever had a gun pointed at you, as I have, it has an impact on how you lead your life that just does not go away. I think that Shon owes his victims compensation for the mental damage that he caused.
When you ignore his victims, you sentimentalize his story.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:06 amCajun Girl 61 says:
After reading some of the responses to my blog, I am amazed. Banks may have insurance, but people and companies are taking huge losses at the hands of a criminal who wanted easy money who didn’t earn it that are passed on to the public who are paying for it in higher premiums, etc. Nobody is jealous. It is simply called accountability for one’s actions and not putting someone on a pedestal who doesn’t deserve to be there. He also educated himself on the taxpayer’s dollar to get the knowledge he has. Again, riding piggyback on something without working for it like the rest of society has to. I don’t care if someone spends ten years in prison for their crime, as well they should if they broke the law. My aunt and uncle lost their son to a murderer who didn’t care what he did to others, as long as he got what he wanted for himself. You can’t change the damage that’s been done to people like that because of someone’s selfish actions. It doesn’t matter whether people are physically hurt or not. It is much deeper than that. You took from a business something that didn’t rightfully belong to you and customers whose money was in those banks that, unlike Hopwood, worked for it. Everyone deserves a second chance in life, but I see Hopwood as a loser who is selfish and takes advantage of others to get what it is he wants at their expense.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:07 pmVincentN says:
Being held accountable... you mean like being put in prison? I don’t see why you keep failing to grasp this concept. Maybe you’re saying that Hopwood should be socially stigmatized for the rest of his life. Okay, then. You can condemn and judge all you want then but I would hardly call that holding someone accountable.
As for putting people on a pedestal, I can see why some people don’t like the idea of this article being written at all, but I think that says more about society sentimentalizing criminals like Jesse James and Bonnie and Clyde rather than saying anything about Hopwood.
Yes, he did. Would you rather he got out and was put on welfare at taxpayer expense instead?
I agree that he was a selfish loser when he was robbing banks. Where is your evidence that he is one now? The second part of your sentence doesn’t really match up with the first part about giving people second chances.
Look, I’m not defending Hopwood because I think he’s a saint but because I find the attitude that rehabilitation is an insult to the victims and is something to be condemned instead of praised to be a puzzling one. I can admire someone for reforming and trying to help others while also thinking he was an utter jackass 10 years ago. But he has paid his debt to society and ragging on him now is unseemly.
You’re just mad because you think he’s scum who had the audacity to not remain scum. Why should he prosper when good, better people suffer? I get all that. I just don’t think that’s a healthy attitude to have.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:34 pmaaaaburn says:
VincentN well said.
I understand the point about victims and all that. The problem seems to be that we
are a nation of victims and cannot get past something bad that happened to us or a family member. It is like some people need that tragedy to justify many things in their lives.
This guy robbed banks and nobody was physically hurt. How that equates to people being murdered is quite the leap. He did his time and is hopefully paying taxes and helping to ensure there still is some justice in the justice system.
If the story about Hopwood inspires one criminal to go legit after prison then I applaud the decision to do the news story. Hopwood did his sentence as mandated by the judicial system. This guy doesnt need to be punished forever.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:30 pmShon R Hopwood says:
After a long exhausting week, I finally got back here to read the comments. I understand why some may be upset by my story. I have faced a lot of jealosy. I also understand that I was an incredibly stupid kid 10 years ago who scarred completely innocent people.
What you should know is that I carry an incredible amount of remorse. And one day I am sure God will hold me accountable. But my accountability for my crimes ended with my jail sentence. As the saying goes...“I did my time.”
Also, I plan to assist other prisoners and the needy through the appellate process if I one day become an attorney. I both want to do that and consider it part of my responsibility.
I hope that people would be positive and inspired by my story, not hateful. But as one commenter stated...“life is not fair.” I don’t expect unanimous approval.
Thank you to those who posted with reason and logic. You are all wise beyond your years.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 1:46 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Shon, I do not begrudge you your achievement. You have been able to do something that few in your situation have been able to do. But I disagree with you as to your belief that your accountability ended when you completed your sentence. You have not addressed the question of whether the victims of your acts have been made whole.
I think not. I do not say this because I have been at the bad end of a gun. Rather, I am thinking of another bank robber, a gambling addict who was trying to pay gambling debts. He was the son of a minister, a cellist, and president of his college class. I recall reading an article about the trial in which a teller whom he robbed testified as to her ordeal. The experience had affected her very much.
Most criminals are not able to compensate their victims after they get out; they do not have the money. But you can do so–if not now, certainly at some point in the future. Yet you seem to think that you acted in a vacuum. That is my problem with your story.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 3:48 pmaaaaburn says:
Yes being a victim of a crime is bad, but when is enough enough. In this country the ‘system’ sends convicted people to prison in lieu of seeking monetary damages like you might from a business that has a deadly product. At some point society has to let people who messed up start over and only punish them if they mess up again. You keep your foot on people who messed up with prison, registration, civil fines, ankle bracelets, etc., they never get out from under their mistake and make something of themselves. If you want to be ‘whole’ then sue instead of prison. If you send people to prison, then they are free when they have done their time. If he wants to somehow help the ‘victims’, then great. This guys initials are not J.C. after all.
Quote
February 19, 2010, 9:07 amcrimepays says:
Leave the poor criminal alone! Leave him alone and stop picking on him with your wholly sensible questions about his victims! How dare you ruin his debut, his rehab-criminal cotillion! Why, he don’t have to apologize to no darn victims, why can’t they hush their mouths and forget about the past like he did!? Those crybabies! What’s a little gun in the face here and there and some stolen loot for some playtime! Don’t dare bring up the fact that he got his little brother involved in the robberies neither! Didn’t you hear him, he’s done with accountability, he “served his time!”
You tell em, Sparky! You keep telling em.
And we wonder why liberal has become a dirty word in this country.
Quote
March 27, 2010, 5:25 pm