The Supreme Court’s decision in <em>Padilla v. Kentucky</em> includes within the Sixth Amendment’s right to the effective assistance of counsel advice on immigration, but still falls short of attaining fundamental fairness and legal professional responsibility. Where <em>Padilla</em>’s recognized representation standard only requires an attorney to advise when the immigration consequences of a guilty plea are “truly clear” —allowing the attorney to “do no more” when not clear—the guiding hand of an attorney remains fractured and will force a noncitizen client to proceed in plea bargaining without informed consent. Rather than giving a private practitioner an excuse to “do no more,” the private practitioner should simply study and provide the applicable immigration law under the circumstances. A public defender not knowledgeable in immigration law, however, should be allowed to do no more based on their uncontrollable caseload, provided an immigration lawyer is also appointed.

Search LIRA@BC Law

Search

Resource type (1)

Creator (1)

Keyword (0)

Collection (1)

Availability (1)

Subject (2)

Results

Under the Circumstances: Padilla v. Kentucky Still Excuses Fundamental Fairness and Leaves Professional Responsibility Lost