Andrew H. Berg - Providence, RI

Andrew Berg was appointed by the court to represent me in a Rhode Island Superior Court criminal appeal arising from my 2021 arrest. I did not privately hire him, but he was my attorney, and the matters entrusted to him were extremely serious. My experience with his representation was deeply disappointing. Communication was difficult, and I repeatedly felt that major concerns about the evidence were being minimized instead of investigated and resolved. One criminal charge depended on the measurement of a knife. I repeatedly asked Berg to have the knife inspected and properly remeasured and raised information from the manufacturer bearing on its lawful dimensions. On May 9, 2023, after I followed up, Berg responded in writing: “Duly noted. I agree the knife charge should’ve been dismissed. I don’t think it’s gonna be a problem at this level.” Despite recognizing the issue, he did not provide me with a clear explanation of what investigation, independent measurement, preservation request, or other action he had taken concerning that evidence. I later learned through records produced in my federal civil-rights litigation that the knife had been destroyed while the criminal appeal was still pending. I am not claiming that Berg destroyed the knife or made the destruction decision. My criticism is that I had repeatedly identified the measurement and preservation of that evidence as critical, yet those concerns remained unresolved during his representation. Once the physical evidence was destroyed, an independent examination and measurement became impossible. There were also serious communication problems concerning the State’s proposed resolution. I was first informed by Berg of the proposed terms on July 10, 2023—the day of the Frye hearing—when I learned that they included a permanent no-trespass condition. I declined the proposal, as I had told him that day I would not accept a deal. My complaint is not that Berg forced me to reject an offer. My complaint is that a significant, permanent condition was disclosed to me only on the hearing date, when I was expected to confirm in court that I understood and declined the proposal. I had no meaningful advance opportunity with counsel to examine that condition, its scope, its factual basis, or its consequences. Before that hearing, I had already informed Berg that I wanted him to withdraw because our attorney-client relationship had broken down. At the hearing, I wanted to place on the record that I had not previously been notified about the no-trespass matter, but I was not permitted to explain it. In my view, the lack of advance communication and preparation left me unable to address an important issue in an orderly and informed way. This was not simply a disagreement over personality or legal strategy. The knife was physical evidence underlying a criminal charge, and the proposed no-trespass condition affected my future rights and access. Both matters required timely investigation, careful preparation, and clear communication. I did not receive those things. This review is limited to my own experience and the communications and proceedings in which I personally participated. Based on that experience, I did not receive the diligence, preparation, communication, or advocacy I reasonably expected from appointed counsel. I would not hire Andrew Berg. Nor could I bring myself to even recommend him to anyone seeking criminal or appellate representation.