Case Story: Securing a Client’s Early Release from Federal Prison

When a client hires us, we become their lawyer for their entire case.

For some, that ends when we get the case dismissed pretrial or when we win at trial. For others, though, our services extend much longer than that.

Because while we don’t often talk about it, not all of our clients win at trial. Many enter into negotiated settlements and receive some sort of punishment, though often it’s far less than what they were facing at the beginning of their case.

Some are even sent to prison. And for them, we always say the same thing: if you need our help while you’re doing your time, don’t hesitate to reach out. We will always answer the call.

That’s what this case is about.

The Start

We represented our client on a federal fraud charge and helped him get a much lower prison sentence than originally expected. But it was a sentence all the same.

And so while he was serving his sentence, one day he contacted us with a problem: he thought the Bureau of Prisons—the organization that administers the sentence handed out in federal court—wanted to make him stay in prison longer than he was supposed to.

This didn’t sit well with us, so we agreed to get involved. We quickly sued, challenging the BOP’s calculations regarding our client’s sentence. And while we ultimately lost the lawsuit, we put enough pressure on the BOP to get them to reverse course and release our client from prison even earlier than expected.

Here’s how we did it.

The Legal Challenge

When a person is serving a sentence in federal prison, they usually must work with the BOP to resolve any issues related to how long they have to stay behind bars. The idea is that the BOP is the expert, so courts will defer to the BOP in how they implement the sentences that judges hand down.

And that’s what our client at first did.

He went to the BOP and said, “hey, I don’t think you are calculating my sentence correctly.” The reason he did so was because of a new law called the First Step Act. The First Step Act did many things, and one was to shorten federal inmates sentences in some cases.

The problem was that the way the law was written was confusing, and so it was hard to know who it applied to and how much.

Our client thought it applied to his case and in an amount that the BOP did not. So our client followed the internal appeals process of the BOP—what is called “exhausting” his “administrative remedies”—and he just kept losing and losing.

But he was undeterred.

He kept making the same challenges, pointing to the plain words of the First Step Act and also court cases where other inmates successfully made challenges like his. Despite this, BOP wouldn’t budge.

After the final administrative denial, our client came to a fork in the road: (1) accept the BOP’s decision and serve the rest of the sentence they said he had to serve; or (2) keep fighting and try get a lawyer to sue BOP, challenging their calculations.

He chose (2), called us up, and we agreed.

We agreed because his interpretation of the First Step Act seemed right to us. So we filed what is called a writ of habeas corpus, which is just a fancy way of saying we sued the BOP in federal court, claiming they wanted to make our client stay in prison for longer than the law allowed.

In other words, we raised the stakes and called their bluff.

BOP’s Response

At first, the BOP didn’t seem like it would budge.

Through their lawyers, they argued we were wrong and they were right. They also said that even if the First Step Act weren’t exactly clear on who was right, as long as their interpretation wasn’t completely crazy, their interpretation should get deference.

We fought back, arguing that their interpretation was both wrong and so wrong that it deserved no deference.

And then we waited for the judge to decide who was right. If we were right, our client would be released early. If the BOP was right, he would have to stay in prison longer.

It was a really big deal.

But then while we were waiting, something odd happened. Without us asking, and without explaining why, the BOP began interpreting the First Step Act in the way our client had been arguing all along.

Whereas before he could not get a certain meeting that is offered under the statute, all of a sudden, he got his meeting.

Whereas before his release date was not being updated according to the statute, all of a sudden, it began being updated.

It was almost as if the BOP was admitting we were right behind the scenes but not in public.

From our perspective, we didn’t care how it was happening, as long as it did. Because while we waited for the judge’s “official” ruling on our lawsuit, we were already getting what we wanted for our client: his release date to be moved up to the earlier date we thought he was entitled to.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Before the judge ruled on the case, the BOP changed its own internal calculations and moved our client’s release date up. And not just up to where we wanted—they moved it up even further than we expected.

It was bizarre. We won more than we asked for. Against the BOP.

We were in disbelief.

The Decision

When the decision came in, most of the lawsuit was moot because the BOP had made the changes we asked for. Ironically, we lost on the few remaining parts that were still contested.

So when you look at the case, without this context, it looks like we “lost” our case against the BOP. And that’s fine. We don’t mind. Because the lawsuit was never about “winning” on whose interpretation of the First Step Act was more correct.

It was about getting our client released from prison as early as possible.

When it comes to freedom, we won.

The Takeaway

Most law firms fight for you when you’re their client. But their representation ends when your case ends.

Not us.

We represent you all the way until you are out of the criminal justice system. Here, that meant suing the BOP so that a former client didn’t overserve his prison sentence.

And not only did he end up not serving his full sentence, but he got more of a reduction than we even asked for. Because of his dogged work, and our willingness to help, he’s coming home to his wife and children 11 months earlier than expected.

That’s why we do this work. And why we’ll continue doing it going forward.