Opinion ID: 2538890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: attorney's duty to form confidential relationship with client

Text: ¶ 29 A.N.J. was always accompanied by his parents when he met with Anderson. Citing Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), American Bar Association (ABA) and local defense bar standards, A.N.J. criticizes Anderson for not meeting with him privately and creating a confidential attorney/client relationship with him. A.N.J. contends that the WSBA standards have been incorporated by reference into Washington statutes, which currently state that The standards endorsed by the Washington state bar association for the provision of public defense services should serve as guidelines to local legislative authorities in adopting standards. RCW 10.101.030. That is a strong reading of the text. At the time that A.N.J. pleaded guilty, the statute merely said that bar endorsed standards may serve as guidelines. Laws of 1989, ch. 409, § 4. We conclude that the professional standards are evidence of what should be done, no more. ¶ 30 Professor Strait condemned the constant presence of A.N.J.'s parents in both his declaration (attached to the petitioner's supplemental brief) and in testimony at the motion hearing itself. A child, it is argued, may be more candid with his lawyer and more willing to express his own view if his parents are not present. Professor Strait contends, among many other things, that [c]andor cannot be accomplished ... when the meeting is held jointly with the parents. There is a substantial risk that the child defer to the parents under such circumstances when advice on the decision to plead guilty or to go to trial is being provided. Ex. 13, at 11-12 (Am. Decl. of John A. Strait). Thus, he suggests, by failing to establish a confidential relationship with A.N.J., Anderson undermined the attorney/client relationship, undermined client autonomy, and potentially waived attorney/client privilege. Id. A juvenile client should be given the opportunity to consult with and confide in his attorney without his parents present. We hold that the failure to provide that opportunity to a juvenile defendant is a factor that may be considered by a court when considering whether a plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made but is not dispositive in this case.