The Tribune unfairly lambasted Michael W. Coffield, generally regarded as one of the finest lawyers in Chicago, simply because he used to be partners with Brian Crowe, the city’s corporation counsel, and because he billed the city $90,000 for prosecuting a police brutality case.
In “City spares no expense on outside prosecutor” (Metro, June 5), you apparently relied on Mr. Coffield’s opponent in the brutality case, together with his more modest bill for his defense of the police officers, to support your thesis that Mr. Coffield was supposedly ripping off the city.
As a member of the Chicago bar and as a former assistant U.S. attorney here, I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Coffield cut his usual billing rate in half to do legal work for the public sector.
As for the hours Mr. Coffield billed relative to the defense, the prosecution has the burden of proof in police brutality cases. With that burden, I know from my experience as a federal prosecutor that Mr. Coffield could not afford to leave any stone unturned in investigating that case in order to anticipate and foreclose any avenues of defense.
In part because police pride and careers are on the line in brutality cases, tensions invariably run high between prosecutors and defense counsel in such cases. That is obviously what happened in Mr. Coffield’s case. You relied on information from a disgruntled opposing counsel to mistakenly portray Mr. Coffield’s representation of the city as some kind of sweetheart deal that somehow ripped off city taxpayers. The only one who was ripped off in this deal is Mr. Coffield.
