A person who believes that they had ineffective assistance of counsel and that it harmed the outcome of their case may be able to appeal the verdict and seek a new trial. They may also have the option to sue their attorney for legal malpractice.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a violation of a person’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. What does California law consider as IAC?
Deficient performance and prejudice
California uses a two-prong test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial based on IAC. First, the defendant must show their criminal defense attorney had deficient performance.
Deficient performance is defined as failing to meet the objective standard of reasonableness expected of attorneys. This may include things like:
- Failing to investigate important evidence
- Not being prepared for trial
- Providing faulty legal advice (based on an inaccurate understanding of the law)
- Making mistakes a competent attorney wouldn’t make
It is not enough to show that an attorney did one or more of the things listed above. A person must show that the attorney’s deficient performance caused prejudice – meaning the outcome of the trial was negatively affected by their performance. There must be a reasonable probability that the case would have had a different outcome if the attorney’s performance had been better or if the defendant had a different attorney.
IAC is a high standard to meet since courts are often hesitant to question how an attorney handled a case unless their behavior or negligence was egregious.
Proving legal malpractice
Even if a person can’t prove IAC and get their verdict overturned, they may still have grounds to sue their attorney for malpractice. The requirements are often not as intense for a legal malpractice lawsuit as they are for proving IAC.
To successfully sue an attorney for legal malpractice, it is typically necessary to show that they didn’t meet the standard of legal professionalism. Examples of failing to meet professional standards may include:
- Failing to meet deadlines for filing notices
- Behaving unprofessionally in court
- Making important decisions without consulting their client
- Failing to adequately communicate with their client
It is important to remember that while proving IAC under California law can be important to getting a verdict overturned, it may be easier to prove legal malpractice instead. Seeking experienced legal malpractice guidance can help someone who believes they experienced IAC better understand how both processes work.