| Professional responsibility |
|---|
| Duties to the client |
| Confidentiality Avoiding conflict of interest Diligence and competence Avoid commingling Avoid self-dealing Effective assistance Avoid fee splitting Withdrawal from representation |
| Duties to the court |
| Disclosure of perjury Disclosure of adverse authority |
| Duties to the profession |
| Limitations on legal advertising Report misconduct |
| Sources of law |
| ABA Model Rules |
| Penalties for misconduct |
| Disbarment · Judicial misconduct |
Ineffective assistance of counsel is an issue raised in legal malpractice suits and in appeals in criminal cases where a criminal defendant asserts that their criminal conviction occurred because their attorney failed to properly defend the case. Having the benefit of counsel or assistance of counsel means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing him or her. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards. In order to prevail on a claim that he received ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:
In Strickland v. Washington (1984), the United States Supreme Court established that failure to inform a defendant of the direct consequences of a sentence qualifies as ineffective assistance of counsel, but failure to inform of collateral consequences of criminal charges does not. The Court carved out an exception for deportation in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), reversing a conviction where a noncitizen was wrongly advised that pleading guilty would not have negative immigration consequences.[1]
Ineffective assistance of counsel may also be a ground for voiding a waiver of the right to appeal that a defendant may have signed as part of her agreement to plead guilty.[2]
|
|||||||||||||||||