Frivolous appeals are thus a particularly important problem to attack. No legitimate interest is served by frivolous appeals. Because indigent criminal defendants have no incentive to forego frivolous appeals, this class of litigants is a singularly large source of frivolous appeals. Therefore, limiting frivolous defense appeals is a particularly fertile ground for saving scarce judicial resources. The decision implicitly mistrusts the reliability of appointed counsel and presumes that retained counsel is willing to file anything for money, no matter how frivolous the appeal.
Few attorneys are so unethical or incompetent.
The Anders brief imposes an impossible ethical dilemma between counsel's duty not to file frivolous claims, and the duty to act as advocate on behalf of the client. Anders also assumes that frivolous can be defined more precisely than reality allows. Anders also places too great a burden on the intermediate appellate courts by requiring them to search the record for appealable issues. Having courts act on behalf of indigent frivolous defendants in this manner creates equal protection problems, since nonindigent defendants and indigent defendants who file briefs on the merits do not get the same level of judicial scrutiny as Anders litigants. Stare decisis is a rule of policy that should not prevent this Court from overruling or modifying Anders .