Is Freezing Assets Needed to Pay Counsel of Choice Constitutional?

, New York Law Journal


Mark R. Hellerer and Anne C. Lefever of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman write that in its October 2013 term, the Supreme Court for the first time in 23 years will squarely consider the constitutionality of pretrial restraints on assets needed by a criminal defendant to pay counsel of choice, a question that has over the past two decades resulted in case law rife with split decisions, reversals, and en banc hearings.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202609540583

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.