Civilian and military defense counsel can work together on the same court-martial case, and in many complex cases this collaboration produces the best outcome. The JAG attorney assigned to the case brings institutional knowledge, familiarity with the specific command environment, and established relationships within the military justice system. The civilian attorney brings independence, specialized expertise, and the ability to take positions and pursue strategies without the career considerations that shape how a military attorney navigates the same terrain.
The division of responsibilities between the two attorneys must be clearly established at the outset. Questions about who takes the lead in court, how communications with the client are managed, and how strategic decisions are made must be answered before the case reaches a critical stage. When the relationship between co-counsel is well structured and the two attorneys work toward a shared strategy, the result can be a defense team that is stronger than either attorney would be individually.
How Co-Counsel Arrangements Work in Military Proceedings
When civilian and military counsel appear together in a court-martial, the court requires that one attorney be designated as lead counsel with primary responsibility for representing the accused in court. This designation is typically made by agreement between the client and both attorneys, and it determines who speaks on behalf of the accused, who is addressed by the court on procedural matters, and who the judge recognizes when multiple attorneys are present.
The designation of lead counsel does not mean that the other attorney has a lesser role in the representation. Outside the courtroom, the division of work, investigation, and strategic development can be structured in any way that serves the client’s interests. The civilian attorney might focus on developing the substantive defense theory while the JAG attorney manages the institutional and procedural aspects that require knowledge of the specific installation and command environment. The key is that the two attorneys function as a unified team with a single client-centered strategy rather than as competing voices offering conflicting advice.
Dividing Responsibilities Between Civilian and Military Counsel
The most effective division of responsibilities assigns each attorney the work they are best positioned to do. The civilian attorney typically takes primary responsibility for legal research, developing the substantive defense theory, drafting significant motions, managing expert witnesses, and leading the courtroom presentation at critical hearings and at trial. The JAG attorney typically handles day-to-day case management, maintains the working relationship with the legal office, handles routine administrative matters, and uses their institutional knowledge to navigate the specific command environment.
This division should be agreed upon at the outset and communicated clearly to the client so that they know who to contact about what. A client who is uncertain whether to call the civilian attorney or the JAG attorney with a specific question will default to whoever they last spoke with, which may not be the right person for the particular issue. Clear communication protocols save time and prevent important information from falling between the cracks.
Communication Protocols and Who Leads the Defense
The question of who leads the defense, and how communications between the client and the defense team flow, must be answered at the beginning of the representation. In most cases where civilian counsel has been retained, the civilian attorney functions as lead counsel and the client’s primary point of contact on strategic matters. The JAG attorney remains an important part of the team but defers to civilian counsel on strategic questions.
Client communication should flow through a defined channel. If the client contacts the JAG attorney with a question about trial strategy and the JAG attorney provides an answer without consulting the civilian attorney, inconsistencies in the defense approach can develop. Conversely, if the JAG attorney learns something important from the client and does not share it with the civilian attorney, the civilian attorney may proceed without information they need. Establishing clear protocols from the beginning prevents these communication failures.
Potential Friction Points Between Civilian and JAG Co-Counsel
Co-counsel relationships in military cases have the potential for friction when the two attorneys have different assessments of the case, different professional styles, or different views about how aggressive the defense should be. An institutional JAG attorney who is accustomed to a more cooperative relationship with the prosecution may find the more adversarial approach of some civilian attorneys uncomfortable. A civilian attorney who is unfamiliar with the institutional culture of the military may misread JAG counsel’s relationships with the prosecution as a conflict of interest.
These friction points are manageable when the two attorneys establish honest communication about their respective approaches, identify areas of disagreement, and resolve them in a way that serves the client. The client’s interests must be the lodestar for every decision about how the two attorneys work together, and a co-counsel arrangement that produces internal conflict at the expense of the client’s representation has failed its primary purpose.
When a Hybrid Defense Team Produces the Best Outcome
A hybrid defense team produces the best outcome when the two attorneys’ respective strengths are complementary, when their working relationship is professionally effective, and when their combined perspective produces a more complete defense than either would have developed individually. The JAG attorney’s institutional knowledge and relationships, combined with the civilian attorney’s independence and specialized expertise, can produce a defense that is both strategically sound and procedurally efficient.
The cases where this combination is most valuable are those that require both deep familiarity with military procedure and the kind of strategic independence that a career military attorney may find difficult to exercise. A complex general court-martial involving multiple charges, sensitive evidence, and the need for specialized experts is exactly the kind of case where a well-functioning civilian-JAG partnership produces results that neither attorney would achieve alone.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.