What's it like to defend a Mexican cartel boss? Reputed drug lords seek lawyers in U.S.
On a single day late last month, the Mexican government shipped 29 accused drug lords north across the border to face U.S. justice.
Plucked from Mexican prison cells, hustled onto planes in shackles and express-delivered into the waiting hands of American authorities were several notorious capos, whose alleged narco exploits have been chronicled in films, TV series and federal indictments spanning decades.
Among them are brothers said to be behind the brutal group known as the Zetas; reputed leaders of the Gulf, Juarez and Jalisco New Generation cartels; and the elusive Rafael Caro Quintero, wanted since the 1980s in connection with the torture and killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.
All are now housed at jails across the country on charges that range from drug trafficking to murder. At least six could face the death penalty, an unusual twist due to the unique circumstances of their arrival.
With their cases now in U.S. courts, there's been a scramble to find lawyers willing and able to defend such high-stakes clients. President Trump has complicated the situation by designating several cartels as terrorist organizations, raising concerns the Treasury Department could seek to freeze assets used to pay attorneys.
Nearly three weeks after their arrival, several notable defendants sent by Mexico on Feb. 27 — including Caro Quintero — still have court-appointed counsel, meaning U.S. taxpayers are footing their legal bills.
Multiple lawyers who specialize in complex federal drug and conspiracy cases described the current moment as unprecedented. Each week seems to bring fresh chaos as Trump ratchets up pressure on Mexico to topple the cartels and stanch the flow of fentanyl.
Read more: The secretive life — and stunning downfall — of Sinaloa cartel boss 'El Mayo' Zambada
It should be boom times for the so-called white powder bar, as the practice of lawyering for the world's most prolific drug pushers has been dubbed. But some veteran attorneys are proceeding with caution, warning of unforeseen consequences from Trump's crackdown and preexisting conflicts that limit who can join certain cases.
'This is sort of like a niche practice,' said Bonnie Klapper, a former federal narcotics prosecutor turned defense attorney. 'I guarantee you a lot of the usual suspects won't be able to represent these people.'
Klapper once helped take down Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel, but she has since switched sides, operating as private counsel. Her past work as a prosecutor precludes her from cases in which she helped craft the indictment, and she's heard from colleagues who have already spotted other conflicts, such as representing potential witnesses.
The death penalty charges further narrow the field. Capital cases require experienced 'learned counsel' and bring their own unique set of challenges, not least the possibility of the client being executed. Three of the 29 prisoners sent over by Mexico are charged in California federal courts, including one death penalty case in Los Angeles.
Adding terrorism designations and pursuing the death penalty while restricting ways for former cartel members to remain in the U.S. also risk making it harder for federal authorities to flip informants, Klapper said.
'I don't think anybody has thought through the implications of this for the criminal justice system,' she said. 'Because who is going to cooperate if the U.S. won't protect them and their families?'
Mexico has abolished capital punishment and typically does not extradite citizens who could be put to death under U.S. law. But officials on both sides of the border have tip-toed around using the word extradition for the recent handover. A news release from the Department of Justice said the U.S. simply 'secured custody' of the wanted men.
William Purpura was one of three lawyers who defended the Sinaloa cartel leader known as El Chapo during a three-month trial that ended with a conviction in 2019. That case did not involve the death penalty, but Purpura has worked on a number of others that did. He said it's a grueling endeavor, requiring 'complete dedication to one client.'
'A death verdict will haunt trial counsel to the execution and beyond,' Purpura said. 'This is not an undertaking for the usual cast of characters. It is the Chapo trial on steroids.'
Purpura and others in private practice said they typically find work through referrals, relying on lawyers in Mexico and meeting with a prospective client's family to build trust before taking on a case.
Defense attorneys have allegedly broken the law in pursuit of business. Last month, a prominent Miami lawyer was charged with a bribery scheme in which prosecutors say two former DEA supervisors leaked confidential information in exchange for Yankees tickets and five-figure secret payments. The tips were about active investigations, which prosecutors said enabled the lawyer to get a head start on wooing the targets as clients.
The lawyer, David Macey, has pleaded not guilty to charges that include bribery of a public official and perjury.
"David is a devoted father and husband and a highly respected attorney with an impeccable record as a member of the bar for nearly 30 years. He did not bribe anyone," Macey's attorney, David Patton, said in a statement. "The government's allegations are false, and we are confident that the evidence will prove his innocence at trial.'
Some of the highest-powered operators have taken on generations of relatives from the same family. Jeffrey Lichtman, the lead trial attorney for El Chapo, now defends his client's two sons, known as Los Chapitos, in their pending U.S. cases. Court records also show Lichtman was recently added to the case of a suspected high-ranking Chapitos member who was among the 29 men handed over by Mexico.
Lichtman did not respond to a request for comment.
Read more: Trial of reputed Mexican cartel leader's son offers cautionary tale for 'narco juniors'
Before representing the Chapo clan, Lichtman once helped New York mob figure John Gotti Jr. beat racketeering charges.
'I'm used to dealing with clients that society has already discarded, already convicted, and being able to convince [jurors] that maybe everything the government and the press says is not 100% accurate,' Lichtman said in a 2017 interview about his decision to represent El Chapo.
One of El Chapo's sons is accused of kidnapping their father's longtime Sinaloa cartel partner, Ismael 'El Mayo' Zambada, and delivering him to U.S. authorities in the summer. The alleged betrayal triggered an ongoing war between cartel factions in Mexico, and left Zambada, 75, facing a possible death sentence for drug and murder charges in the Eastern District of New York. He has pleaded not guilty.
Zambada's lawyer, Frank Perez, 70, had careers as an air traffic controller and Dallas narcotics detective before building up his law practice. Perez also tried his hand at politics, launching an unsuccessful bid for Congress as a Democrat in 2014. He recently found himself thrust into the spotlight, with Zambada's case becoming a source of international intrigue and controversy.
Perez has issued statements on the jailed Zambada's behalf, leveling the kidnapping claims against El Chapo's son and denying rumors of a secret surrender deal. Recently, Perez and two lawyers in Mexico petitioned to have Zambada returned to his home country, arguing he was "coercively transferred from Mexican territory."
Read more: Bitter feud among Sinaloa cartel families brings grim new tactic: Grave desecration
The federal judge presiding over Zambada's case in Brooklyn raised concerns that Perez has a potential conflict of interest. Perez also represented his client's son, Vicente Zambada Niebla, a key witness against El Chapo who could now potentially be called to testify against his own father.
The elder Zambada said at a Jan. 15 hearing that he understood the situation and trusted his lawyer.
"He may have to withhold information he learns from speaking with Vicente that he can't share with me," Zambada said, reading a prepared statement in Spanish. "But I don't want a different attorney. I want Frank Perez to represent me."
Perez declined to comment, except to reiterate his recent public statements that his client is not cooperating with U.S. authorities and fighting to avoid the death penalty.
Read more: From jail, drug lord 'El Mayo' Zambada tells wild story of corruption and murder
Court records show Perez also recently took on another high-profile client: Miguel Angel Treviño-Morales, nicknamed Z-40. Treviño-Morales was arraigned last week in Washington, where he pleaded not guilty to an array of drug and murder conspiracy charges for his alleged leadership of the Zetas.
Originally a squad of elite Mexican military defectors who became guns for hire, the Zetas formed a ruthless cartel blamed by authorities for a long list of atrocities over the last three decades. A splinter group, the Northeast cartel, was among those designated as a terrorist organization last month by the Trump administration.
The terror designation, several lawyers said, has created uncertainty about whether some standard operating procedures for cartel cases may no longer apply.
The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control has long maintained a so-called kingpin list of suspected drug traffickers and front companies that are banned from doing business with U.S. citizens or accessing the banking system. Usually, defense lawyers said, if they provide proper notification, disclosing how much money was received and what it was for, the agency will allow transactions for legal services.
Read more: Soldiers and civilians are dying as Mexican cartels embrace a terrifying new weapon: Land mines
For one thing, the system ensures tax dollars aren't unnecessarily spent on court-appointed counsel.
Eduardo Balarezo, another El Chapo trial attorney, said it's in the government's interest to allow private counsel, especially when the defendant is willing to negotiate a plea.
The deals can ensure the client has a chance of someday walking free, net the government millions of dollars in surrenders of illicit cash — and also make less work for all of the lawyers involved.
"It doesn't take that much to go in with your client to the government and listen to him talk," Balarezo said. "You have to prepare him, but it's not the same as a trial."
But with Trump rebranding cartels as terrorists, some lawyers worry the government may change its stance on payments and pleas.
'That's a huge question for all these people: Do they have assets to pay for lawyers, and is the government going to do anything about it?' said César de Castro, a New York defense attorney who has worked on several major drug cases.
Although U.S. prosecutors have accused top-level traffickers of being billionaires, some can show on paper that they can't afford an attorney.
Read more: Mexico's ex-security czar gets 38 years for cartel bribes. Is he the first of many?
De Castro served as the court-appointed lawyer for Genaro García Luna, a former Mexican security official sentenced last year to 38 years in prison for taking millions in cartel bribes.
The case was under a media and political microscope, forcing De Castro to tread carefully.
'Every phrasing of everything is important,' he said. 'Every fricking word matters.'
De Castro faced backlash during the trial when Mexico's former president took offense to the lawyer's questions about alleged cartel payments. Death threats ensued — a hazard of the job, the lawyer said.
'I don't want to be threatened or chased outside the courthouse. I have a family too. I don't need voicemails telling me I should die. But I had to do it for my client,' he said.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?
President Trump's sweeping new travel ban went into effect on Monday, barring citizens of 12 countries from visiting the United States and imposing restrictions on those from seven others. In a video message last week announcing the ban, Trump cited national security concerns, claiming that foreigners who were not properly vetted posed a terror risk. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' Trump said. The president also cited the recent attack in Boulder, Colo., by a man who allegedly shouted 'Free Palestine' and threw Molotov cocktails into a crowd of people calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said. 'We don't want them.' The suspect, identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, was arrested and charged with a hate crime. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman is from Egypt and had overstayed a tourist visa. Egypt is not among the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. The ban, which went into effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET, prohibits foreign nationals from the following countries from entering the U.S.: Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar (Burma) Somalia Sudan Yemen It imposes partial restrictions on foreign nationals from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela There are numerous groups of people who are exempt from Trump's new travel ban. They include: Any lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dual citizens, or U.S. citizens who also have citizenship of one of the banned countries. Athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events determined by the U.S. secretary of state. Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked for the U.S. government or its allies during the war in Afghanistan. Children adopted by U.S. citizens. Diplomats and foreign government officials or representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits. Foreign national employees of the U.S. government who have served abroad for at least 15 years, their spouses and children. Individuals with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection to their spouses, children or parents. Iranians belonging to an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution. Refugees who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. before the ban. Those traveling to the United Nations headquarters in New York solely on official business. The announcement angered humanitarian groups working to resettle refugees. 'President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' Amnesty International USA said in a statement posted to X. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' "This policy is not about national security,' Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, said in a statement. 'It is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States." 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace,' Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' The African Union Commission released a statement expressing concern about 'the potential negative impact' of the ban on educational exchange, commerce and engagement and the 'broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' The commission said it 'respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' The new travel ban is similar to the one Trump imposed in January 2017, his first month in office. That ban restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Syria and Iraq are not included on the new list.) It went into effect via an executive order with virtually no notice, causing chaos at airports nationwide and prompting numerous legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a version of it in 2018. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told the New York Times that the new ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Vladeck said. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced.'