What is any office doing when trial counsel files in post-conviction habeas proceedings an affidavit declaring he/she was ineffective at trial and the "confession of error" is fatal to your conviction? Are you (1) doing nothing (2) grieving the attorney,(3) letting the trial judge grieve the attorney, (4) coordinating the grievance with the trial judge,(5) letting the appellate court file the grievance, (6) recommending removal from the appointment wheel/list, (7) suing the attorney for the expense to the county or (8) taking any other action?

Both attorneys and judges have a duty to report offenders under the rules, but does anyone do it or have a internal office procedure or policy in place?

JAS If you would rather, call me at 940-349-2600.

JAS

I suppose, from the silence, that no one is doing anything? Any thoughts, though?

JAS

My experience has been that the grievance committee did nothing to the attorney when I felt (as did an appellate court) the defense had not zealously represented his client. The attorney had filed an affidavit saying as much in his motion for new trial. I didn't act lightly and was disappointed in the result.

Thanks for the input Dan. I figured most did not even pursue things as far as you did. It is dissappointing that the Bar did nothing. Is self-policing a (the) problem?

JAS

(I write this response solely in my capacities as a voter and as a member of the public at large.)

I would appreciate being able to open a local newspaper to read a story about a lawyer who had admitted he or she was ineffective at trial. I would also be interested in reading a quote or two from the local county auditor regarding the the economic impact that this lawyer's admission of ineffective assistance had on the county. Perhaps the reporter might also ask the local judge(s) what impact the admission of ineffective assistance might have on the judge's future decision(s) to appoint that particular attorney for indigent defense. Or the reporter might ask a member of the public at large what he or she would think about a judge who continued to appoint an attorney who had previously admitted being a lousy defense attorney, and further ask whether such a decision by a judge would impact whether that voter might cast a ballot in favor of that judge at re-election time.

I would also like to see counsel's explanation to the general public about what this lawyer plans to do differently in future cases now that his or her conduct has been shown to hurdle the increasingly high bar that is ineffective assistance.

That is worthwhile accountability for appointed counsel. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of ineffective counsel seem to be retained and are not on the appointment lists. In those situations, the defendants are getting just what they want... justice delayed.

JAS

I haven't exactly seen the courts rushing out to grant relief when the big name retained guys sign an affidavit within 3 days of a an adverse verdict admitting just how bad they are. The Goodrich case out of Dallas springs to mind.

Here's one I really hate:

On appeal, the defendant claims his trial lawyer was ineffective. Turns out, the trial lawyer is also the appellate lawyer writing the brief.

Shouldn't that get you 3 days in the stocks in front of the courthouse so the other lawyers can peg you with rocks and rotten vegetables?

They should also have to mail back their bar cards!

JAS

We're always going to see things like this until there are some actual consequences to being found ineffective. Relying on a disciplinary board that never takes action just isn't enough.

This is a pet peeve of mine.

I had an attorney one time tell me he planned to write an appellate brief raising ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, even though he himself had been trial counsel.

He changed his mind after I told him that I would file a grievance with the bar.

Or perhaps what change his mind was my additional threat of writing a press release to all the area newspapers about his planned admission regarding ineffectiveness.

Whether he was more afraid of a court of lawyers or a court of public opinion -- either way, he didn't raise ineffective assistance on himself in the appellate brief he filed a week later.