Human rights and money laundering: The prospect of international seizure of defense attorney fees

Conclusion At bottom, the power of the state to intervene and effectively control the relationship of a private attorney with that lawyer's client before trial and conviction is simply too onerous to be justified on the basis of crime control alone. The most persuasive arguments inMonsanto andCaplin & Drysdale are those of the dissent, which relied on the centrality to the sixth amendment of the relationship of trust that is fostered in the private attorney-client relationship. The failure to honor the right to counsel of choice results, as the dissent noted, in the possibility of the socialization of criminal defense services and diminution of counsel's independence.These conclusions, of course, are statements of policy, not empirically provable propositions. Major human rights instruments, as well as their interpretation by tribunals, express a policy of overwhelming and explicit commitment to the right to a fair trial, to equality of arms, to the presumption of innocence, to protection from undue government interference with chosen counsel, and to the right to counsel of choice itself. It can only be hoped that these provisions will persuade the European Court of Human Rights to strike the balance of policy equities in favor of protection of the accused.This paper was originally presented as part of a panel on International Human Rights and International Criminal Law, at the American Bar Association annual meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., August 13, 1991.B.A., De Pauw University 1965; J.D., University of Illinois 1972.