Court Opinion

ID: 9793254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:45:03.364422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:10.227833
License: Public Domain

MARTONE, Justice,
concurring in the judgment and in the opinion in part.
I join in the judgment of the court and in all but part B, “The Question of Respondent’s Ineffective Representation,” of the opinion. Ante, at 52-53, 847 P.2d at 97-98. Neither the State Bar nor the respondent has argued that the Rule 32 finding and ruling on the denial of effective assistance of counsel is binding in this proceeding. Both acknowledge that because the respondent was not a party to the Rule 32 proceeding, and because of the different standard of proof, there is no preclusive effect. It is for these two reasons that the respondent is entitled to a full and fair hearing before the State Bar.
That being the case, I do not understand the sense in which the court considers “the outcome of the Rule 32 Petition as final with regard to the question of whether a lawyer’s representation was legally ineffective and prejudicial but do[es] not necessarily equate such a finding with a violation of our ethical rules.” Ante, at 53, 847 P.2d at 98. Because the conduct in the Rule 32 petition is the same as the conduct that would violate ER 1.1, if the outcome is in any sense “final,” there has been preclusion. The court says that the respondent cannot relitigate the Rule 32 finding but, nevertheless, is not bound by it anyway. But if one cannot relitigate, one is bound. If one is not bound, one can relitigate. I would say that because the respondent, a nonparty, is not bound by it, the finding in the Rule 32 setting is not final or preclu-sive in the disciplinary proceeding. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the conduct is different when it is in fact the same.
ER 1.1, Rules of Professional Conduct, provides that:
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
A lawyer deprives a client of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when the representation falls below “an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The Sixth Amendment relies on “the legal profession’s maintenance of standards.” Id., at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. In essence, “[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id. Of course, to show denial of effective assistance of counsel, one must show not only deficient performance, but also prejudice to the defendant’s case. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. The defendant must show a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. It is, therefore, plain that one cannot deny a client effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and at the same time provide “competent representation to a client” within the meaning of ER 1.1.
This is not to say that in every case of denial of effective assistance of counsel there will be a successful finding of a violation of ER 1.1. First, the lawyer will have an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, the outcome may change. Secondly, the standard *61of proof is significantly higher in a disciplinary setting. Thirdly, the presence of mitigating factors in a disciplinary setting may be so enormous that, notwithstanding incompetence, the complaint will be dismissed. This, of course, does not convert incompetent representation into competent representation. It simply means that discipline may be inappropriate.
Because I believe that, normatively, the conduct which results in a denial of effective assistance of counsel necessarily implicates a denial of competent representation under ER 1.1, I would hold that in every such ease, the trial judge who presides over the proceeding in which the ineffective claim is successful should refer the matter to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation. The trial judge is not in a position to screen such cases. That is the State Bar’s task. Thus, while there is no per se rule that successful post conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel will automatically result in an ethical violation, there should be an automatic reference to the State Bar so that those charged with the responsibility to enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct can review all such circumstances.
I, therefore, reject the court’s approach that leaves open the possibility that conduct which denies a defendant effective assistance of counsel could nevertheless be competent representation within the meaning of ER 1.1.
MOELLER, V.C.J. and ZLAKET, J., re-cused themselves and did not participate in the determination of this matter.