Court Opinion

ID: 9712067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:45:48.330705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.615426
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I read Baum v. State (1989), Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200, as requiring only
(1) the appearance of counsel, in a
(2) procedurally fair setting, which resulted in
(3) a judgment of the court.
Such was the case here.1 Any defects in counsel’s performance did not affect the fairness of the process or the law.
Counsel’s performance or lack of it cannot affect the outcome of this civil matter under Baum. That issue is a personal one between Patton and his attorney.
I would affirm.

. In civil proceedings a litigant dissatisfied with his counsel’s performance is left to his civil remedies. Cf. Johnson v. Rutoskey (1984), Ind. App., 472 N.E.2d 620, 623 (Generally, ineffective assistance of counsel is not a basis for reversing a civil case. The court specifically declined to speculate about the propriety of arguing ineffective assistance of counsel in cases of a civil nature having criminal or punitive ramifications, e.g. petitions for post conviction relief, juvenile matters, and the like.); In re Marriage of Ford (1984), Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 357, 361, trans. denied (In a civil case one suffers the consequences of any error of judgment made by the attorney she hires.); and Weenig v. Wood (1976), 169 Ind.App. 413, 425-426, 349 N.E.2d 235, 243 (Where civil litigant was represented by Utah attorney in an Indiana court held lack of Indiana counsel was no reason for reversal.)