In May 2021 Milton Raiford, a well-known Black defence lawyer in Pittsburgh, spoke in an Allegheny County courtroom about racism in the local criminal justice system. He described the district attorney's office as systemically racist, and in later reporting the courthouse was described in his words as a cesspool of white privilege.
The DA's response
Five days later, the Allegheny County District Attorney, Stephen Zappala, who had held the office since 1998, emailed his deputies instructing them not to offer plea deals to Raiford's clients. Zappala said Raiford had been wrong to call the office's plea offers racist.
The reaction
The instruction drew wide criticism. More than a dozen local politicians and officials condemned it; some called for Zappala to resign, others for an apology, an independent investigation, and withdrawal of the policy. A University of Pittsburgh legal ethics expert said the email appeared to violate a prosecutor's basic duties and could expose him to disciplinary action. The central concern was that defendants, who had done nothing, were being penalised for their lawyer's speech.
The reversal
On 6 June 2021 Zappala issued a letter rescinding the policy. He replaced it with a procedure: when anyone alleges that a plea offer treats a defendant differently because of a protected characteristic, prosecutors must gather the relevant facts, including comparable cases, and escalate the matter if needed. Zappala acknowledged that a policy aimed at one lawyer would not ensure consistency. The letter did not include an apology.
The issues it raised
- Defendants' rights. A plea offer is a decision about a defendant's case. Tying it to the conduct of their lawyer risks punishing the client for something they did not do.
- Free speech and advocacy. Lawyers are allowed, and sometimes obliged, to criticise the system. Retaliation against them chills that.
- Racial disparities. The dispute began with a complaint about racial disparities in charging and sentencing, a subject studied extensively in American criminal justice and not resolved by the policy's reversal.
The episode echoes a theme in the Finucane case: the way people in authority talk about, and treat, lawyers who represent unpopular clients can have consequences far beyond the courtroom.