Twenty-three years after the Supreme Court established standards for assessing whether a lawyer's performance was so bad that his or her client's right to a fair trial was compromised, many experts say that the promise of Strickland v. Washington has gone unfulfilled, with underpaid and overwhelmed lawyers still allowed to give indigent defendants subpar representation. Even the ruling's author, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, recently acknowledged that her decision left unanswered questions.
November 14, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Supreme Court in 1984 established new standards for assessing whether a lawyer’s performance was so bad that his or her client’s right to a fair trial was compromised.
“An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair,” the Court proclaimed in Strickland v. Washington.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
