When I pulled the idea of "just the cost of the airfare" up and used that in my earlier comment at 1 on this thread, I was using it to highlight the deep financial hole into which Mr. Folsom has tossed himself.  I did not even take the time to write about how utterly impossible (as a practical matter) it would be for Folsom to be representing Zazi.  Conculting with the client, meeting with the client, going over the defenses, going over the discovery - all those things will wind up being well-nigh impossible.

But my point is - Folsom has taken on a crushing financial burden and that will affect the way he prepares the case.  The crush comes from both the apparent inability of Zazi to pay, and from the work for paying clients which Folsom will have to forego while working on Zazi's case.  Even the possible presence of CJA reimbursement won't help that much.  Folsom will have to lay out the cash now and any reimbursement will come later.  Much later.  That's a cash crunch he won't be able to withstand.

In taking this case Folsom's situation - business-wise - reminds me of a colleague's.  This colleague does a nice business representing ordinary working people who need divorces, guardianships, wills, house closings and minor criminal matters.  Nothing serious, nothing heavy in terms of litigation.  Usually things are simple and the biggest asset is the family home and the biggest issue how to deal with it.  This colleague sets up his work for these clients on a flat-fee basis: "you bring me $2500 and I'll get you a divorce", in so many words.  That works well for both sides of the relationship.  The client gets the legal problem resolved for a fixed fee which they know and have to come up with in advance, and they know the problem will be resolved quickly.  The attorney has payment in hand before he starts work (no collections necessary) and every incentive to resolve the case quickly.

This works fabulously until a complicated or new issue arises.  I do per diem work for this colleague and others and, working with him on even the most simple case is always under the gun of "do magic to resolve the issue and spend no time on making it happen", in large part because I charge (extremely reasonable) hourly rates for my per diem work.  If (to keep things very simple) the $2500 price to get grandma's handwritten Will probated and Estate administered gets complicated by a relative who does not want to see that will admitted to probate and we have to litigate, then me spending 3 hours researching and writing a simple letter brief on why Grandma's handwritten will is valid suddenly turns the case into a money-loser.  My colleague (and this obtains for everyone working on a low, flat-fee basis) is then under enormous financial pressure to settle the case and resolve the issue now because he is not getting any more money from the client regardless of how long, how hard or how successfully he works.  My colleague has fabulous negotiation and settling skills, but I often have the nagging feeling that he's selling the client on settling not because settling is the "best" result for the client but because settling (while it does insulate the client from exposure to more legal fees) guarantees my colleague's work on this case will not become a finncial black hole.  

I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen perfectly good legal issues which, if pursued, could have gotten more for the client, left on the table in the interests of a settlement now.  Of course, this depends on the value judgment of how you define "best result".  It's an argument which can go on forever.

This flat-fee mentality runs up against the rocks and falls to pieces when you come up an adversary who is unwilling to compromise, or at least unwilling to compromise without a court hammering them with orders forcing the case to move toward the middle.  In other words, for example, an AUSA prosecuting a supposed case of terrorism.

Every offer of settlement, offer to resolve, offer to negotiate will be met with "plead to the indictment" or "no".  All those finely honed settlement chops are useless when the other side doesn't want to dance and resolve but instead wants to win and win it all.  The litigation skills needed to fight in that arena are atrophied (if they ever had been developed in the first place).

This problem is exacerbated when, as seems likely, the client is unsophisticated in legal matters and is relying more heavily on the lawyer for advice, counsel, emotional support, you name it, than would the experienced client.  Now, the client takes what the lawyer says as Gospel, becomes wedded to their choice of lawyer and will not even entertain the idea that his choice of lawyer might no longer be appropriate (even if, initially, that lawyer might have been appropriate to the problem as it then existed).  

And this emotional attachment which the client might have to a lawyer (kind of like a gambler who's lost objectivity doubling down on a bet which, everyone else sees, is certainly going bad) does not take into account the possibility that the client sees his arrest and prosecution as a martyrdom kind of thing, or is scamming his own lawyer or the feds to help the client's henchmen make good their escape.  Those exacerbate the situation.

I think the comments which posit one of the drivers behind Folsom's behavior/choices in this matter as the "need to get on Larry King" likely have some validity.  Working on Joe Schmoe's divorce or DWI is usually not the most rewarding - in ego terms - kind of work.  Indeed, it can be both deadly dull and will never make you even remotely famous.  How much of the mix the need to be on TV might be - who knows.

Lastly, as to tight-knit immigrant communities pooling their money to help out one of their own -that has some truth, but for it to operate two conditions have to exist which I haven't seen yet as to Zazi.  First, you have to be a member (and, usually a well-respected one) of the community for the community to pull together around you.  From what I've read, Zazi just moved to Colorado a year or so ago and is not really a part of his community.  Second, if either you are so radioactive because of the allegations against you or are likely to make life more difficult for the community because of what you are alleged to have done or who you are, they are more likely to cut you adrift.  One of the truisms that applies is that people at the bottom of the system see and understand, in great detail, exactly how the system works.  They do not have the luxury of harboring, let alone believing, illusions of fairness, justice obtaining, right will out, or any of the other things which middle-class people dragged into the criminal arena might entertain.  They've seen friends and relatives beaten by cops or dragged into cop cars for no reason, people convicted to make the system run, and all the other injustices in the criminal justice system. They are quite willing to, and do, toss members of their community to the wolves of the justice system rather than go down with them.