Protecting the Continuing Duties of Loyalty and Confidentiality in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

Q2 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Ethics Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2020.1747175
Lawrence J. Fox, Darcy Covert, Megan Mumford
{"title":"Protecting the Continuing Duties of Loyalty and Confidentiality in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims","authors":"Lawrence J. Fox, Darcy Covert, Megan Mumford","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2020.1747175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The success or failure of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim turns largely on the testimony of trial counsel. It is therefore common for the government to communicate ex parte with trial counsel in order to formulate its response to such a claim. But even after the representation has ended, trial counsel continues to be bound by duties of loyalty and confidentiality to their former client, as well as the attorney-client privilege, subject to a limited waiver relative to information that is reasonably necessary to respond to the ineffectiveness claim. Because of their interests in the litigation, however, neither trial counsel nor the government is positioned to objectively decide what information is covered by that waiver. In order to ensure that trial counsel respects their ethical duties to their former client and to protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship, post-conviction courts should prohibit trial counsel from communicating ex parte with the government. These courts should instead require that all such communications take place on the record—ideally at a deposition, but alternatively through affidavits.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"39 1","pages":"23 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0731129X.2020.1747175","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2020.1747175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The success or failure of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim turns largely on the testimony of trial counsel. It is therefore common for the government to communicate ex parte with trial counsel in order to formulate its response to such a claim. But even after the representation has ended, trial counsel continues to be bound by duties of loyalty and confidentiality to their former client, as well as the attorney-client privilege, subject to a limited waiver relative to information that is reasonably necessary to respond to the ineffectiveness claim. Because of their interests in the litigation, however, neither trial counsel nor the government is positioned to objectively decide what information is covered by that waiver. In order to ensure that trial counsel respects their ethical duties to their former client and to protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship, post-conviction courts should prohibit trial counsel from communicating ex parte with the government. These courts should instead require that all such communications take place on the record—ideally at a deposition, but alternatively through affidavits.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在无效协助律师索赔中保护忠诚和保密的持续义务
律师无效协助诉讼的成败在很大程度上取决于审判律师的证词。因此,政府通常会单独与审判律师联系,以便对这种申诉作出答复。但是,即使在代理结束后,审判律师仍然受到对其前客户忠诚和保密的义务的约束,以及律师-客户特权,受限于对无效索赔作出回应的合理必要的信息的有限放弃。然而,由于他们在诉讼中的利益,审判律师和政府都无法客观地决定哪些信息属于豁免范围。为确保审判律师尊重其对前委托人的道德义务,并保护律师-委托人关系的神圣性,定罪后法院应禁止审判律师单方面与政府沟通。相反,这些法院应该要求所有此类交流都记录在案——最好是在证词中进行,但也可以通过宣誓书进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1