Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): exclusively on this Court’s decision in Brooks, which held that trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to meet with his capital client personally prior to trial. It emphasizes that Brooks was decided in 2003, nine years after Elliott’s 1994 trial, and created a duty for capital counsel that did not previously exist, thereby constituting a new development in the case law that was unknown to both trial and appellate counsel. Thus, the Commonwealth argues that trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for abdicating a non-existent duty, and appellate counsel could not have been ineffective in failing to challenge trial counsel’s stewardship, which, at the time, was considered to be constitutionally sufficient. See Commonwealth v. Harvey, 571 Pa. 533, 812 A.2d 1190, 1196-97 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (citing Commonwealth v. Bundy, 491 Pa. 607, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is well settled that the amount of time an attorney spends consulting with his client before trial is not by itself a legitimate basis for inferring the total extent of counsels pretrial preparation much less the adequacy of counsels preparation (B) holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance (C) holding that total denial of compensation is the only appropriate sanction for nondisclosure of all facts bearing upon counsels eligibility and all connections with debtor including counsels retainer agreement (D) holding that the time actually spent by counsel with the accused discussing his case is not necessarily related to and affords no basis for inferring the extent of total trial preparation (E) holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client
Output (English): holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client