ÿWPCË "ÔZ+µŒ7Z0ŒP¸›?ïÙ®²‹X~³0ÒTް÷}ÙcÚuvK Bá8pW7Ì%Ôñ«Š) OhRI–¬èŸmN]'øó±©q?W\Ž/:h<쑹E÷F)3À÷8–Grš¯6§»á¢%Þ*sÿ¹ÌÎ}î.ì46wÌŽ^$‰ö¼®är%'Gu"¶)yê#Û§U,¶æO˜ ‹öŸ!½}Ar6ó˜þÿDWVœ&[o6÷^Æ¿™Òm®k# fv¬Ã¹Ê^¤2ÁHìj‰û›ÂJ`»úB™.gÁ£suT^Äàs'²Dd•"†1y ¨Lt %£F¿ø“ rÁ´A×G­ˆ*Álõæ€r‡oz H…œÙÐa¼Óö€ãÝ‹èZ4i4Bò£4d¢ÝÀé"dýÒý•®“±'§˜E“ÂQJÿ¶¸OÆTÃÈõÉÇÌ’Äêõ•Cß•â(/!¡?8à+¥‰jiaPR(ñ\ÜáÛææ*›VZÅK3`4?Ÿ¡§BB˜y@'åMíÛèúßX_‚ýámJÚ<ûCíí§î$ÎuÒ\ò9KšmÚ ÎsÑÙ!mxàc^éR,µŸŠ°VGvEg½ º…gW#!ÂU2Nã %1 0(7M_ 0nc 0-ÑU8þ U >6 ^ t w@€ 4À Ô ã må Èü 0lÄ 0D0 0 0Nt N  ~Ä BUY=®¥ë¼ L\¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨ B®˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡<ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡XXXÔ.|‚ÿÿ,TitleÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡   ÔÔM‡ô\  ` Book AntiquaMÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÑ  Ñô\  ` Book Antiquaô\  `&Times New Romanü­¬2‰ Z[E\]^E_`a{bcD¦‹-1@Þ0ê:i¢×+003|xcÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ¾Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àÔ‡ŠÇ‹XXÔThe€materialsÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇ€#Ô€Ô€ŠÇ‹XX5cÔin€this€portion€of€the€discussion€are€based€in€significant€part€onÐ >Ž Ðmaterials€originally€prepared€by€SDAP€Executive€Director€Michael€Kresser€and€AssistantÏExecutive€Director€Dallas€Sacher.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ tÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€Ô‡ŠÇ‹XXÔòòProfessional€ResponsibilityóóÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇX#Ô€Ô‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔof€the€Criminal€Lawyer,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€9:3,€pp.€282„283;Ð ° ÐÔ#†X5cX‹ŠǼ#Ô€òòÔ‡ XmXXX5cÔÔ‡ Šù*‹X XmÔLawyering€in€a€Hybrid€Adversary€Systemóó,€òòsupraóó.Ô#†ŠÇ‹‹ Šù*R#ÔÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇq#Ô KÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ŠÇ‹XXÔÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòLawyeringÔ_Ô€in€a€Hybrid€Adversary€System,€supraóó;€Abbe€Smith,€òòDefending€Defending:Ð >Ž ÐThe€Case€for€Unmitigated€Zeal€on€Behalf€of€People€Who€Do€Terrible€Thingsóó,€(2000)€28Ð >Ž ÐÔ_ÔHofstraÔ_Ô€L.€Rev.€925. 3Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô‡Š¡¹‹XXÔInformation€on€this€topic€is€based€on€a€discussion€in€Professional€ResponsibilityÐ ° Ðof€the€Criminal€Lawyer€(Second€Ed.€1996€&€2005€Supp.),€authored€by€John€Wesley€Hall,ÏJr. ›Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àÔ€ŠÇ‹XXÔSee,€e.g.,€John€S.€Ô_ÔDzienkowskiÔ_Ô,€òòÔ_ÔW.M.Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔKeckÔ_Ô€Foundation€Forum€on€the€Teaching€ofÐ >Ž ÐLegal€Ethics:€€Lawyering€in€a€Hybrid€Adversary€Systemóó€(1996)€38€Ô_ÔWmÔ_Ô€and€Mary€L.€Rev.Ð >Ž Ð45;€Carrie€Ô_ÔMenkelÔ_Ô„Meadow,€òòThe€Lawyer€as€Consensus€Builder:€€Ethics€for€a€New€PracticeóóÐ >Ž Ð(2002)€70€Tenn.€L.€Rev.€63.Ìhttp:// ²Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€Ô‡ŠÇ‹XXÔCiting€ABA€Op€280€(1949)Ô#†X5cX‹ŠÇX#Ôhttp://www.abanet.org/cpr/links/html.  ALCC EvidBrelandMississipiEvittsLucey SDAPKresserSacherCal.AppFlahertynonfrivolousFrierson dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ XíXXXÔÑ  ÑÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÑ€5ÑÑÔ‡  L!X XíÔÓÓÓÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ8€5XXdìdÈ8ÑÌÔ#† ¥!! L+#ÔIntroductionÐ ì< ÐÌA€BRIEF€HISTORY€OF€THE€PROFESSIONAL€CODES׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð d´ ÐÌÓõÓÓ×Óà  àÔ#†X5X! ¥¦#ÔÔ‡Š¡¹‹XX5ÔUntil€the€early€Twentieth€òòóóCentury,€there€was€no€coherent€body€of€ethics€lawÐ Ü , Ðgoverning€the€relationship€between€attorney€and€client.€€Prior€to€that€time,€the€question€ofÏdisciplinary€action€was€left€to€the€local€courts.€€In€1887,€however,€the€State€of€AlabamaÏadopted€the€first€legal€code€of€ethics.€€Interestingly,€however,€the€code€languished€for€someÏtwelve€years€before€it€was€officially€published.Ìà  àThe€American€Bar€Association€(hereafter€ððABAðð)€took€its€first€public€stance€on€ethicsÐ Ü, Ðwhen€it€adopted€its€Canons€of€Ethics€in€1908.€€Though€largely€based€on€the€Alabama€CodeÏof€Ethics,€by€the€latter€half€of€the€Twentieth€Century,€the€Canons€were€universally€viewedÏas€unhelpful€because€of€their€lack€of€specificity.€€Ìà  àAs€a€result,€in€1969,€the€ABA€adopted€a€new€ethical€code,€known€as€the€ABA€ModelÏCode€of€Professional€Responsibility€(the€ððCPRðð€or€ð ðModel€Codeðð).€€This€code€was€soÐ Ü, Ðsuccessful€that€it€was€eventually€adopted,€at€least€in€part,€by€every€jurisdiction€in€the€UnitedÏStates.€€The€CPR€is€divided€up€into€various€sections,€including€a€Preamble,€a€PreliminaryÏStatement,€the€Canons,€Ethical€Considerations,€Disciplinary€Rules,€and€Definitions.€€TheÏEthical€Considerations€are€intended€to€provide€guidance€to€lawyers€and€represent€the€idealsÐ Ü&,"! ÐÔ_Ôtoward€which€every€attorney€should€strive.€€A€violation€of€the€Disciplinary€Rules,€however,Ïconstitutes€misconduct€for€which€a€lawyer€is€subject€to€disciplinary€proceedings.Ìà  àThe€ABA€Model€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€(ð ðthe€Model€Rulesðð€or€ð ðRPCðð)€wasÏfirst€adopted€in€1983€and€has€been€amended€several€times€since,€most€recently€in€2002.€ÏThese€recent€revisions€were€first€adopted€in€2000€by€the€ð ðEthics€2000€Commission.ðð€€TheÏModel€Rules€have€not€enjoyed€the€same€success€as€the€Model€Code,€which€was€adoptedÏalmost€verbatim€in€all€the€states€and€is€still€retained€in€several€jurisdictions.€€However,€theÏModel€Rules€have€been€adopted€in€about€three„quarters€of€the€states,€although€with€varyingÏdegrees€of€modifications.€€While€some€of€the€rules€are€intended€to€provide€guidance,Ïviolation€of€most€of€the€rules€would€result€in€professional€discipline.€€This€code€can€be€foundÏat€www.abanet.org/cpr/e2k„report_home.html.Ìà  àCriminal€lawyers€under€the€aegis€of€the€ABA€developed€their€own€code€of€conductÏin€1971.€€The€ABA€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€adopt€or€closely€follow€the€RPC€andÏCPR,€but€are€intended€to€provide€guidance€and€are€not€considered€enforceable.€Ìà  àDissatisfied€with€the€ABA€codes,€the€American€Trial€Lawyerððs€Association€presentedÏthe€American€Lawyerððs€Code€of€Conduct€(the€ð ðALCCðð)€as€an€alternative€in€1982.€€WrittenÏby€trial€lawyers€for€trial€lawyers,€it€differs€in€important€respects€from€the€ABA€codes€in€itsÏinterpretation€of€the€rules€governing€client€confidentiality€and€zealous€advocacy€on€behalfÏâ âof€the€Ô_Ôclient.Ð °($$ Ðà  àAnother€recent€ethical€code€is€the€Restatement€of€the€Law€Governing€Lawyers,€firstÏâ âpublished€by€the€American€Law€Institute€in€2000.€€The€Restatement€is€now€being€citedÏregularly€by€the€courts€and€in€law€review€articles.Ìà  àIn€addition,€all€fifty€states€have€adopted€their€own€codes,€most€taking€their€lead€fromÏthe€ABAððs€CPR€and€RPC.€€These€codes€can€all€be€found€at€Ô4‚Ý QÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6ÔÝ‚ÍO0ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý Q^ÔÔ4‚Ý QÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôwww.abanet.org/cpr/links/html.Ô6ÁÔÝ‚ÍOÕƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý '#ԀР°  Ðà  àCaliforniaððs€lawyers€are€heavily€regulated€by€statute,€most€of€which€are€found€in€theÏBusiness€&€Professions€and€Evidence€Codes.€€(See,€e.g.,€Bus.€&€Prof.€Code,€ðð€6068,Ïoutlining€the€duties€of€an€attorney;€Evid.€Code,€ðð€952,€defining€confidential€communicationÏbetween€a€client€and€lawyer.)€€In€addition,€as€far€back€as€1927,€the€California€LegislatureÏauthorized€the€Board€of€Governors€of€the€State€Bar€to€draw€up€rules€of€professional€conductÏwith€the€approval€of€the€California€Supreme€Court.€€The€current€version€of€the€statute,Ïenacted€in€1939,€authorizes€the€Board€of€Governors,€with€the€approval€of€the€stateððs€highÏcourt,€to€ð ðformulate€and€enforce€rules€of€professional€conduct.ððÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†X5cX‹Šdž#ÔÔ‡ të!XX5cÔÔ‡  ì;!! tëÔÓÓOPPOSING€FORCES€IN€THE€ADVERSARY€SYSTEM:€Ð °  ÐBALANCING€Ô#† XmX! ì;˜#ÔÔ‡  ì;!X XmÔTHE€DUTY€OF€CANDOR€TO€THE€TRIBUNALÐ ì!< ЀWITH€THE€DUTY€TO€ZEALOUSLY€REPRESENT€YOUR€CLIENTÏAND€TO€REFRAIN€FROM€ARGUING€AGAINSTÌ€YOUR€CLIENTððS€POSITIONÔ#† XmX! ì;S#Ô€Ô#†X5cXX Xm·#ÔÔ‡ XmXXX5cÔÐ  %ð  ÐÔ#†X5cXX Xm`#ÔÓÖÓÌÔ‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔÓ  Óà  àð ðIt€is€the€essence€of€our€adversary€system€that€each€litigant€have€the€assistance€of€aÐ ´($# Ðlawyer€who€is€prepared,€if€it€be€appropriate,€to€defy€hell€on€his€or€her€clientððs€behalf.€[ðð]€[ðð]€Ð ´*&% ÐA€lawyer€is€and€must€be€the€ultimate€advocate.€€He€speaks€for€and€in€the€interest€of€hisÏclient.€€He€seizes€every€fair€advantage€available€to€his€client.€€And€when€his€client€is€on€theÏÔ_Ôropes,€his€lawyer,€standing€alone€if€need€be,€is€that€one€person€who,€in€the€interest€of€hisÏclient,€skillfully€defies€the€state,€the€opposing€litigant,€or€whoever€threatens.€€The€lawyer€isÏprepared€to€stand€against€the€forces€of€hell€though€others€see€that€as€his€clientððs€just€dessert.€ÏHe€assures€all€adversaries,€in€the€vernacular€of€the€streets,€ððYou€may€get€my€client€butÏyouððve€got€to€come€through€me€first.ðð€[ðð]€If€the€lawyer€is€to€perform€these€vital€functions,Ïhe€must€be€unfettered,€.€.€.€even€when€he€skates€close€to€the€edge.ððÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇÎ#ÔÐ ° ÐÓíÓÔ‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔÓ  Ó(òòThornton€v.€Brelandóó€(1983)€441€So.2d€1348,€1350„1351.)Ð ° ÐÓPÓÓ  Óà  àIt€may€surprise€many€to€know€that€these€are€the€words€of€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏMississipi,€affirming€a€lower€courtððs€denial€of€a€writ€of€prohibition€which€sought€to€removeÏa€lawyer€from€a€case€on€the€eve€of€trial.€€The€requested€removal€was€based€on€the€premiseÏof€the€lawyerððs€anticipated€violation€of€the€stateððs€Disciplinary€Rules€should€he€€representÏthe€client€at€trial.€Ô#†X5cX‹ŠÇ1#ÔÔ‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔÐ ° Ðà  àOne€wonders€if€a€California€court€would€have€demonstrated€such€a€lofty€and€astute€Ïunderstanding€of€the€role€of€the€zealous€advocate.€€As€explained€more€fully€below,€the€dutyÏto€zealously€represent€a€client€has€been€somewhat€eroded€in€recent€years.€€Thus,€it€is€all€theÏmore€important€that€as€criminal€defense€lawyers,€we€balance€the€conflicting€ethicalÏobligations€which€sometimes€arise€as€a€result€of€the€conflict€between€a€lawyerððsÏresponsibilities€to€clients€and€to€the€legal€system.€€As€the€Preamble€to€the€Model€Rules€Ô_ÔofÐ °*&& ÐProfessional€Conduct€observes,€ð ð[Ô_Ôs]uchÔ_Ô€issues€must€be€resolved€ð ðthrough€the€exercise€ofÏsensitive€professional€and€moral€judgment€guided€by€the€basic€principlesðð€underlying€theÏvarious€ethical€codes.€€ÌÓ¾Óà @ àò òÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇy#ÔÔ‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔòòÌÓ  ÓFACTUAL€SCENARIOó óóóÔ#†X5cX‹ŠÇ$!#ÔÐ °  ÐÓG!ÓÔ‡ŠÇ‹XX5cÔÓ  Óà  àAn€individual€who€is€committed€to€a€state€hospital€under€Penal€Code€section€1368Ð °  Ðis€not€entitled€to€conduct€and€participation€credits€for€the€period€of€his€hospital€confinement.Ìà  àYour€client€was€declared€incompetent€to€stand€trial€and€committed€to€the€state€mentalÏhospital€for€six€months€before€competency€was€restored.€€At€time€of€sentencing,€the€trialÏcourt€failed€to€award€all€of€the€actual€custody€credits€to€which€your€client€is€entitled.€€On€theÏother€hand,€the€court€erroneously€gave€your€client€conduct€credits€for€the€entire€period€ofÏpre„sentence€custody,€including€the€period€of€state€hospital€confinement.ÌÑ  Ñà  àYou€intend€to€send€the€court€a€letter€requesting€recalculation€of€the€actual€custodyÏcredits.€€You€owe€the€court€a€duty€of€candor.€€All€the€ethical€codes€state€that€you€owe€a€dutyÏof€candor€to€the€tribunal€and€prohibit€a€member€from€misleading€the€court€with€a€falseÏstatement€of€law€or€fact.€€€Of€course,€as€appellate€counsel,€you€also€have€a€duty€to€refrainÏfrom€arguing€against€your€own€client.€You€are€also€obligated€to€zealously€defend€yourÏclientððs€interests.Ìà  àWith€these€ethical€obligations€in€mind,€what€do€you€say€in€your€letter€to€theÏsentencing€court?€€Do€you€simply€confine€your€remarks€to€the€actual€custody€credit€awardÐ °*&& ÐÑ5ÑÑâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRXà3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑâ âÑ  Ñand€ignore€the€error€in€conduct€credits?€€Or€do€you€inform€the€court€of€the€correct€amountÐ ° Ðof€actual€and€conduct€credits€to€which€your€client€is€entitled?ÌÓÐ!ÓÔ_Ôò òòòóóó óÔ#†X5cX‹ŠDZ!#ÔÔ_Ôà @ àÔ€ të!XX5cÔÌò òòòÔ‡¼,/ »! tëÔÓ  Óó óThe€Relevant€RulesóóÔ#† të! »¼,/ *#ÔÐ ( x ÐÓ,*ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ŠÇ‹! tëÔà  àAll€of€the€ethical€codes€impose€a€duty€of€candor€to€the€tribunal.€€For€example,Ð L œ Ðpursuant€to€section€6068,€subdivision€(d)€of€the€California€Business€&€Professions€Code,€itÏis€the€duty€of€an€attorney€ðð[Ô_Ôt]oÔ_Ô€employ,€for€the€purpose€of€maintaining€the€causes€confidedÐ Lœ  Ðto€him€or€her€those€means€only€as€are€consistent€with€truth,€and€never€to€seek€or€mislead€theÏjudge€or€any€judicial€officer€by€an€artifice€or€false€statement€of€fact€or€law.ððÌà  àRule€5„200€of€the€California€State€Barððs€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€states€thatÏðð[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€presenting€a€matter€to€a€tribunal,€a€member:€€ðð€€(A)€€Shall€employ,€for€the€purpose€ofÐ Lœ Ðmaintaining€the€causes€confided€to€the€member€such€means€only€as€are€consistent€with€theÏtruth;€ðð€[and]€(B)€Shall€not€seek€to€mislead€the€judge,€judicial€officer,€or€jury€by€an€artificeÏor€false€statement€of€fact€or€law.ððÌà  àSimilarly,€the€American€Bar€Association€Model€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,€ruleÏ3.3,€provides€that€ðð[a]€lawyer€shall€not€knowingly:€€ðð(1)€make€a€false€statement€of€fact€or€lawÐ L#œ Ðto€a€tribunal€or€fail€to€correct€a€false€statement€of€material€fact€or€law€previously€made€to€theÏtribunal€by€the€lawyer;€[or]€(2)€fail€€to€disclose€to€the€tribunal€legal€authority€in€theÏcontrolling€jurisdiction€known€to€the€lawyer€to€be€directly€adverse€to€the€position€of€theÏÔ_Ôclient€and€not€disclosed€by€opposing€counsel;€.€.€.ðð€Ð L+œ&& Ðà  àStandard€4„1.1(d)€of€the€ABAððs€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€states€that€ðð[i]t€isÐ ° Ðunprofessional€conduct€for€a€lawyer€intentionally€to€misrepresent€matters€of€fact€or€law€toÏthe€court.ðð€€(1986€ed.)Ìà  àOn€the€other€hand,€it€has€generally€been€recognized€that€a€lawyer€has€an€ethical€dutyÏto€zealously€advocate€on€behalf€of€his€or€her€client.€€Interestingly,€however,€the€earlier€ethicsÏcodes€appear€to€place€a€greater€emphasis€on€this€duty.€€Moreover,€commentators€in€recentÏyears€have€begun€to€question€the€continuing€viability€of€the€adversarial€system€outlined€byÏProfessor€Monroe€H.€Freemanððs€1966€law€review€article,€Professional€Responsibility€of€theÏCriminal€Defense€Lawyer:€The€Three€Hardest€Questions,€64€Michigan€Law€Review€1469.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðà  àCanon€15€of€the€1908€Canons,€for€example,€framed€the€rule€in€very€persuasive€andÐ ° Ðððzealousðð,€if€you€will,€terms.€€Canon€15€provided€that€the€ð ðlawyer€owes€ððentire€devotion€toÐ ° Ðthe€interests€of€the€client,€warm€zeal€in€the€maintenance€and€defense€of€his€rights€and€theÏexertion€of€his€utmost€learning€and€ability,ðð€to€the€end€that€nothing€be€taken€or€be€withheldÏfrom€him,€save€by€the€rules€of€law,€legally€applied.€€No€fear€of€judicial€disfavor€or€publicÏunpopularity€should€restrain€him€from€full€discharge€of€his€duty.€€In€the€judicial€forum€theÏclient€is€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€any€and€every€remedy€and€defense€that€is€authorized€by€theÏlaw€of€the€land,€and€he€may€expect€his€lawyer€to€assert€every€such€remedy€or€defense.ððÐ °$  Ðà  àNot€surprisingly,€the€1992€the€Preamble€to€the€American€Lawyerððs€Code€of€Conduct,Ïwritten€by€trial€lawyers,€continues€to€adopt€the€zealous€advocacy€rule€in€the€most€partisanÏand€definitive€terms,€stating:€ð ðIt€is€clear€that€the€lawyer€for€a€private€party€is€and€should€beÏan€officer€of€the€court€only€in€the€sense€of€serving€a€court€as€a€zealous,€partisan€advocate€ofÏone€side€of€the€case€before€it,€and€in€the€sense€of€having€been€licensed€by€a€court€to€play€thatÏvery€role.ððÌà  àCanon€7€of€the€ABAððs€1969€Model€Code,€also€continued€the€zealous€advocacy€rule.€ÏIt€did€so€in€simple,€but€eloquent€language:€€ð ðA€€lawyer€should€represent€a€client€zealouslyÏwithin€the€bounds€of€the€law.ðð€€(Capitalizations€omitted.)€€The€Model€Code€also€formulatedÏa€rule€against€doing€harm€to€oneððs€client.€€Disciplinary€Rule€7„101(A)(3)€states€that€a€lawyerÏshall€not€intentionally€ððprejudice€or€damage€his€client€during€the€course€of€the€professionalÐ ° Ðrelationship€.€.€.€.ðð€€€Ethical€Considerations€7„9€provides€that€a€lawyer€ððshould€always€act€inÐ ° Ða€manner€consistent€with€the€best€interests€of€his€client.ðð€€Interestingly,€the€Model€RulesÏhave€no€comparable€provisions.Ìà  àIn€addition,€the€Model€Rules,€as€adopted€in€1983,€removed€the€duty€of€zealousÏrepresentation€from€its€national€ethics€code.€€As€a€result,€some€commentators€have€taken€theÏposition€that€the€Model€Rules€have€ððreaffirmed€explicitly€a€duty€upon€lawyer„advocates€thatÐ °$  Ðoverrides€client€interests€when€a€client€commits€a€fraud€on€the€tribunal.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Under€the€currentÐ °&"" Ðversion€of€the€Model€Rules,€the€duty€of€zealous€advocacy€is€relegated€to€the€variousÏreferences€in€the€Preamble€and€a€comment€to€the€rule€requiring€the€lawyer€to€act€withÏdiligence.€€As€noted€above,€this€has€clearly€been€seen€by€commentators€as€diluting€the€forceÏof€the€zealous€advocacy€rule.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Preamble€provides,€inter€alia,€that€ð ð[a]s€advocate,€aÐ °  Ðlawyer€zealously€asserts€the€clientððs€position€under€the€rules€of€the€adversary€system.ðð€€TheÏPreamble€further€states:€that€a€lawyer€should€ð ðzealously€.€.€.€protect€and€pursue€a€clientððsÏlegitimate€interests,€within€the€bounds€of€the€law€.€.€.€.ðð€€A€comment€to€Rule€1.3,€whichÏdiscusses€the€lawyerððs€obligation€to€act€with€diligence,€although€with€some€reservations:€€Ïð ðA€lawyer€should€pursue€a€matter€on€behalf€of€a€client€despite€opposition,€obstruction€orÏpersonal€inconvenience€to€the€lawyer,€and€take€whatever€lawful€and€ethical€measures€areÏrequired€to€vindicate€a€clientððs€cause€or€endeavor.€€A€lawyer€must€also€act€with€commitmentÏand€dedication€to€the€interests€of€the€client€and€with€zeal€in€advocacy€upon€the€clientððsÏbehalf.€€A€lawyer€is€not€bound,€however,€to€press€for€every€advantage€that€might€be€realizedÏfor€the€client.€.€.€.€ððÌà  àStandard€4„1.1(b)€of€the€1986€edition€of€the€ABAððs€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice,Ïprovides€that€a€lawyer€for€the€accused€ððis€to€serve€as€the€accusedððs€counselor€and€advocateÐ °" Ðwith€courage,€devotion,€and€to€the€utmost€of€his€or€her€learning€and€ability€and€accordingÏto€the€law.ððÐ °&"" Ðà  àAlthough€California€requires€that€an€attorney€act€competently,€as€do€other€ethicalÏcanons,€surprisingly,€neither€the€California€statutes€governing€ethical€conduct€nor€the€StateÏBar€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€impose€a€duty€of€zealous€advocacy.€€Division€Three€ofÏthe€Second€Appellate€District€cited€the€rule€in€òòPeople€v.€Cropperóó€(1979)€89€Cal.App.3d€€716,Ð °  Ð720,€a€case€relying€upon€the€old€Model€Code.€€However,€it€appears€that€no€majority€opinionÏof€the€California€Supreme€Court€has€explicitly€adopted€the€zealous€advocacy€rule.€€Rather,Ïthe€rule€has€been€relegated€to€dissenting€opinions€in€òòPeople€v.€Wadeóó€(1988)€44€Cal.3d€975,Ð °  Ð1000„1001€[dis.€opn.€of€Broussard,€J.]€and€òòPeople€v.€Perezóó€(1979)€24€Cal.3d€133,€148€(dis.Ð ° Ðopn.€of€Mosk,€J.).€€In€both€of€these€cases,€however,€the€dissenting€justices€find€that€zealousÏadvocacy€is,€in€fact,€a€component€of€constitutionally€effective€representation.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð ° Ðà  àCalifornia€and€federal€courts€agree,€however,€that€it€is€not€only€unethical€for€anÏattorney€to€argue€against€his€own€client,€but€is€also€a€violation€of€the€clientððs€right€toÏcompetent€representation€under€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€(See,€e.g,€òòPeople€v.€Feggansóó€(1967)Ð ° Ð67€Cal.2d€444,€447€[it€is€a€Sixth€Amendment€violation€for€appellate€counsel€to€argue€theÏcase€against€his€client];€accord€òòPeople€v.€Langóó€(1974)€11€Cal.3d€134,€139;€€òòÔ‡Šù*‹‹ŠÇÔPeople€v.€HarrisóóÔ#†ŠÇ‹‹Šù*êJ#ÔÐ °  Ð(1993)€19€Cal.App.4òòthóó€709,€714;€òòAnders€v.€Californiaóó€€(1967)€386€U.S.€738,€744„745€[SixthÐ °" ÐAmendment€right€to€counsel€requires€that€appellate€attorney€support€his€clientððs€appeal€toÏthe€best€of€his€ability;€counsel€is€required€to€act€as€an€active€advocate€and€refrain€fromÏarguing€against€his€client];€òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó€(1985)€469€U.S.€387,€394€[appellate€counselÐ °($$ Ðððmust€play€the€role€of€an€active€advocate,€rather€than€a€mere€friend€of€the€court.€.€.€Ô_Ô.ðð)Ð °*&& ÐÓ˜*ÓÓ  Óòòò òÔ#† të!‹ŠǤ*#ÔÔ‡¼,/ »! tëÔDiscussionóóó óÔ#† të! »¼,/ÄM#ÔÐ ° ÐÓMÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ŠÇ‹! tëÔà  àReturning€to€the€hypothetical€credits€question,€how€should€appellate€counsel€balanceÐ Ø( Ðthese€competing€ethical€duties?€€How€does€counsel€ensure€that€his€or€her€client€receives€theÏcredit€to€which€he€is€entitled€but€at€the€same€time€avoid€arguing€against€oneððs€own€client€orÏmisleading€the€tribunal?€€Are€you€misleading€the€court€if€your€written€request€for€creditsÏincludes€the€erroneous€conduct€credits€as€part€of€the€total€credits€to€which€your€client€isÏentitled?€If€you€ignore€the€conduct€credits€in€your€calculations,€could€you€be€alerting€theÏcourt€that€there€is€an€issue€about€these€credits?€€What€cases€should€you€cite€in€support€ofÏyour€credits€request?€€For€example,€suppose€you€find€several€cases€to€support€your€claim€thatÏthe€defendant€is€entitled€to€actual€credits€for€the€period€of€his€commitment,€but€these€casesÏalso€discuss€the€fact€that€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€conduct€credits?€€Will€you€be€tippingÏoff€the€court€to€the€conduct€credit€problem€if€you€cite€these€cases?€€Are€you€arguing€againstÏyour€clientððs€position€if€you€include€citations€to€these€authorities?€€Suppose€you€find€olderÏcases€discussing€only€the€question€of€actual€credits?€€If€you€cite€only€these€older€cases,€areÏyou€violating€your€duty€of€candor€to€the€tribunal?€€What€happens€if,€unlikely€as€it€may€seem,Ïthe€trial€court€actually€reads€these€older€cases,€researches€the€issue€on€its€own,€and€finds€outÏthat€you€have€omitted€the€most€recent€case€law?€€Could€you€be€accused€intentionallyÏmisleading€the€tribunal?Ìà  àOn€the€other€hand,€suppose€you€candidly€tell€the€court€in€your€written€motion€that€itÏerroneously€imposed€conduct€credits?€€Would€this€be€arguing€against€the€position€of€yourÐ Ø*(&& ÐÔ_Ôclient€and€violating€your€duty€of€zealous€advocacy,€assuming€that€such€a€duty€still€exists€inÏCalifornia?€€€Finally,€what€if€the€court€calendars€a€hearing€on€the€motion?€€What€if€youÏappear€in€court€and€opposing€counsel€concedes€that€your€client€is€entitled€to€all€of€the€creditsÏ„„€the€actual€credits€you€have€requested€plus€the€conduct€credits€to€which€the€client€is€notÏentitled?€€Do€you€have€a€duty€to€speak€up?€€Are€you€misleading€the€court€by€remaining€silentÏor€submitting€the€issue?€€What€if€the€court€directly€asks€you€about€the€conduct€credits?€€WhatÏshould€your€response€be€then?Ìà  àObviously,€while€the€ethical€codes€provide€general€guidelines,€more€difficulties€ariseÏwhen€lawyers€are€faced€with€specific€problems€for€which€none€of€the€rules€provide€anÏanswer.€€Like€many€specific€scenarios€that€can€arise,€the€hypothetical€question€at€issue€€fallsÏinto€that€same€gray€category:€€€the€ethical€rules€provide€guidelines,€but€clear„cut€answers€areÏnot€so€easily€discerned.€Ìà  àNevertheless,€here€are€some€tentative€answers,€intended€as€suggestions€and€notÏnecessarily€as€authoritative€or€definitive€conclusions.€€Does€one€mislead€the€court€byÏincluding€the€erroneous€conduct€credits€as€part€of€the€total€credits€due?€€I€would€concludeÏthat€this€crosses€the€line€and€would€qualify€as€misleading€the€tribunal.€€Since€counsel€isÏaware€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€total€conduct€credits€awarded,€it€would€beÏmisleading€to€include€such€credits€in€oneððs€calculations.€€In€this€situation,€inclusion€of€theÏconduct€credits€in€the€total€calculation€would€not€be€consistent€with€the€duty€to€employÏð ðsuch€means€only€as€are€consistent€with€the€truth.ðð€€(Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€of€Ô_ÔtheÐ °*&& ÐState€Bar€of€California,€rule€5„200(A);€Bus.€&€Prof.€Code,€ðð€6068,€subd.€(d).)€€It€would€alsoÏviolate€€the€prohibition€against€misleading€the€court€through€an€artifice€or€false€statement€ofÏfact€or€law.€€(Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€of€the€State€Bar€of€California,€rule€5„200(B);ÏBus.€&€Prof.€Code,€ðð€6068,€subd.€(d).)Ìà  àWhat€cases€should€be€cited€in€the€written€request?€€On€the€one€hand,€avoiding€caseÏlaw€which€discusses€the€total€picture€ð!ð€actual€and€conduct€credits€„€while€not€an€explicitÏmisstatement€of€the€law,€could€be€viewed€as€misleading.€€Citing€older€cases€which€addressedÏonly€the€question€of€actual€credits€could€also€be€viewed€as€misleading.€€In€both€situations,Ïone€is€making€a€conscious€decision€to€avoid€the€most€recent€„„€and€adverse€„„€case€law€in€theÏhope€that€the€court€will€not€become€aware€of€the€conduct€credit€problem.€€As€noted€by€JohnÏWesley€Hallððs€treatise,€òòProfessional€Responsibility€of€the€Criminal€Lawyeróó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€testÐ ° Ðin€every€case€should€be€.€.€.€[Ô_Ôm]ightÔ_Ô€the€judge€consider€himself€misled?ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€one€case,€a€courtÐ ° Ðfound€an€attorney€committed€misconduct€by€failing€to€disclose€authority€in€the€controllingÏjurisdiction€which€was€known€by€the€lawyer€to€be€directly€adverse€to€the€position€of€theÏclient€and€which€was€not€disclosed€by€opposing€counsel.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòIn€re€Greenbergóó€(1954)Ð °  Ð15€N.J.€132,€104€A.2d€46,€citing€ABA€Op€280€(1949).)€€Thus,€it€appears€that€avoiding€theÏcontrolling€case€law€in€this€situation€would€cross€the€ethical€line€and€qualify€as€an€attemptÏto€mislead€the€tribunal.€Ìà  àWhat€about€candidly€informing€the€court€that€your€client€is€not€entitled€to€some€of€theÐ °($$ Ðconduct€credits€he€has€received?€€€In€my€opinion,€coughing€up€this€information€at€the€outsetÏwould€violate€both€the€rules€which€prohibit€arguing€against€your€own€client€as€well€as€theÏrule€requiring€zealous€advocacy.€€In€a€formal€ethics€opinion€in€1990,€the€NationalÏAssociation€of€Criminal€Defense€Lawyers€found€that€a€criminal€defense€lawyer€has€no€dutyÏto€advise€the€court€that€it€has€committed€plain€error€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€(Ô_ÔNACDLÔ_Ô€OpÏ90„4€(Dec.€1990).)€€Thus,€in€the€current€hypothetical,€as€long€as€the€lawyer€does€nothing€toÏmislead€the€court€when€the€initial€request€for€additional€credits€is€made,€he€or€she€would€notÏbe€required€to€inform€the€court€of€the€credits€error€in€the€clientððs€favor.€€For€example,€a€letterÏto€the€court€which€simply€requests€recalculation€of€the€ò òactualó ó€credits,€without€referencingÐ ° Ðthe€conduct€credits€at€all,€would€maintain€the€balance€between€candor€to€the€court€and€theÏduties€the€lawyer€owes€to€the€client.Ìà  àThe€answer€changes,€however,€if€the€lawyer€finds€himself€or€herself€inside€aÏcourtroom€with€the€judge€making€a€direct€inquiry€on€the€clientððs€entitlement€to€the€conductÏcredits.€€It€seems€quite€clear€that€in€this€situation,€the€lawyer€would€be€obligated€to€adviseÏthe€court€that€the€client€is€not€entitled€to€conduct€credits€for€the€period€of€the€clientððsÏcommitment.Ìà  àBut€what€obligation€does€counsel€have€where€at€a€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€districtÏattorney€concedes€the€issue€and€informs€the€court€your€client€is€entitled€not€only€to€the€actualÏcredits,€but€also€to€the€conduct€credits€for€the€period€of€his€commitment?€€It€is€misleadingÏfor€the€lawyer€to€merely€submit€the€issue€without€argument€or€comment?€€This€scenario€isÐ ¸*&& Ðsomewhat€murky.€€On€the€one€hand,€counsel€does€not€have€the€duty€of€informing€the€courtÏthat€it€is€committing€error.€€On€the€other€hand,€counsel€has€the€duty€to€alert€the€court€toÏadverse€authority.€€Erring€on€the€side€of€the€duty€of€€zealous€advocacy,€my€inclination€wouldÏbe€to€conclude€that€as€long€as€the€court€does€not€ask€a€direct€question,€and€as€long€as€counselÏdoes€not€make€any€misleading€statement€or€argument,€silence€in€this€situation€is€golden.€ÏSubmit€the€matter€without€argument€and€hope€that€you€have€made€the€right€ethical€decision.ÌSometimes€that€is€the€best€we€can€do.Ð  °  ÐÔ#† të!‹ŠÇGN#ÔÓ;NÓÓÓò òó óCOMPETING€ETHICAL€QUESTIONS:€€THE€FRIVOLOUS€ORÐ ° ÐNEAR„FRIVOLOUS€ISSUE,€ZEALOUS€ADVOCACY,€AND€THEÏDUTY€TO€PROTECT€YOUR€CLIENTððS€INTERESTS€à @ àÌà @ àà @` àÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àÔ€ŠÇ‹! tëÔIf€thereððs€one€thing€we€all€have€in€common€as€appellate€lawyers,€it€is€the€frustratingÐ   ð ÐÓ!nÓÓÓexperience€of€running€into€the€frivolous€or€near„frivolous€issue.€€What€do€we€do,€however,Ïwhen€a€persistent€client€threatens€to€take€action€harmful€to€his€own€cause€if€we€refuse€toÏraise€such€an€issue?¹Ó?nÓÓúnÓÌò òòòFACTUAL€SCENARIO€#1óóó óÐ  ð  ÐÌÓ XÓÓÓÓ  ÓA.à ` àYour€client€has€appealed€a€jury€trial€conviction€resulting€in€a€Three€StrikesÐ  ð Ðsentence€of€twenty„five€years„to„life.€€The€client€is€very€involved€in€the€appeal.€€He€writesÏconstantly€and€has€very€definite€ideas€about€the€issues€he€wants€you€to€raise.ÌYou€have€found€several€meritorious€issues,€some€of€which€carry€a€sound€basis€forÏreversal€of€the€judgment.€€However,€your€client€is€insisting€that€you€raise€two€other€issuesÏyou€know€to€be€completely€frivolous.€€The€client€is€threatening€to€do€something€contrary€toÏhis€interests€if€you€do€not€raise€these€issues.ÌYou€have€a€duty€to€refrain€from€arguing€issues€that€are€frivolous.€€You€also€have€aÏduty€to€adequately€protect€your€clientððs€interests.€€What€do€you€do?ÌÓSpÓÑ  ÑÓApÓÓ XÓòòò òó óóóÌò òòòFACTUAL€SCENARIO€#2óóó óÐ  'ð"" ÐÌÓÓÓ  Óà  àB.à ` àTake€the€same€facts€presented€in€2„A€above.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€issuesÐ  )ð$$ Ðyour€client€wants€you€to€raise€are€not€frivolous.€€However,€they€are€weak€and€carry€noÐ  +ð&& Ðrealistic€chance€of€success.€€Since€you€have€strong€issues€to€raise,€you€believe€that€addingÏthese€weak€issues€will€lessen€your€credibility€with€the€court€and€weaken€your€chance€ofÏprevailing€on€the€meritorious€issues€you€have€found.€€What€do€you€do?ÌÓæsÓÌòòò òTHE€RELEVANT€RULESó óóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐÓÔsÓÓÓÓ  Óà  àð ðFrivolousðð€and€ð ðarguableðð€issues€have€been€given€various€definitions€through€theÏyears.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Johnsonóó€(1981)€123€Cal.App.3d€106,€109,€Justice€Gardner€defined€anÐ °  Ðarguable€issue€as€follows:Ìà8  à[Ô_ÔA]nÔ_Ô€arguable€issue€on€appeal€consists€of€two€elements.€€First,€the€issue€mustÏbe€one€which,€in€counselððs€professional€opinion,€is€meritorious.€€That€is€notÏto€say€that€the€contention€must€necessarily€achieve€success.€€Rather,€it€mustÏhave€a€reasonable€potential€for€success.€€Second,€if€successful,€the€issue€mustÏbe€such€that,€if€resolved€favorably€to€the€appellant,€the€result€will€either€be€aÏreversal€or€a€modification€of€the€judgment.Ð Ð Ð  Ðòòà  àóóTaking€a€somewhat€different€turn,€òòIn€re€Marriage€of€Flahertyóó€(1982)€31€Cal.3d€637,Ð °  Ð649„650,€held€that€an€issue€is€frivolous€when€it€is€ð ðtotally€and€completely€devoid€of€€merit..ðð€ÏIn€òòPeople€v.€Craigóó€(1991)€234€Cal.App.3d€1066,€1068,€the€court€defined€a€frivolous€issueÐ °$  Ðas€one€which€is€ð ðunarguably€not€arguable.ðð€€Ð °&"" ÐÔ_Ôà  àCase€law€and€the€ethics€codes€universally€hold€that€an€attorney€has€an€ethicalÏobligation€to€refrain€from€asserting€a€frivolous€claim.€€Disciplinary€Rule€7„102(A)(2)€of€theÏModel€Code€provides:€ð ðA€lawyer€shall€not€bring€or€defend€a€proceeding,€or€assert€orÏcontrovert€an€issue€therein,€unless€there€is€a€basis€in€law€and€fact€for€doing€so€that€is€notÏfrivolous,€which€includes€a€good€faith€argument€for€an€extension,€modification€or€reversalÏof€existing€law.ðð€€€Rule€3.1€of€the€Model€Rules€reaffirms€this€position€by€restating€the€ModelÏCode€Disciplinary€Rule€verbatim.€€California€law€is€in€accord.€€Section€6068,€subdivisionÏ(c)€of€the€Business€&€Professions€Code€includes€a€duty€to€ð ðmaintain€those€actions,Ïproceedings,€or€defenses€only€as€appear€to€him€or€her€legal€or€just,€except€the€defense€of€aÏperson€charged€with€a€public€offense.ðð€€California€case€law€also€holds€that€attorneys€haveÏan€ethical€obligation€to€refrain€from€arguing€frivolous€issues.€€(òòIn€re€Marriage€of€Flahertyóó,Ð ° Ðòòsupraóó,€31€Cal.3d€at€òòóóp.€647.)Ð ° Ðà  àAs€noted€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòFlahertyóó,€however,€ð ð[c]ounsel€face€the€danger€ofÐ ° Ðbeing€trapped€between€their€obligation€to€their€clients€to€diligently€pursue€any€possiblyÏmeritorious€claim,€and€their€obligation€to€the€judicial€system€to€refrain€from€prosecutingÏfrivolous€claims.€ðð[An]€attorney€is€often€confronted€with€clashing€obligations€imposed€byÏour€system€of€justice.€An€attorney€has€an€obligation€not€only€to€protect€his€client's€interestsÏbut€also€to€respect€the€legitimate€interests€of€fellow€members€of€the€bar,€the€judiciary,€andÏâ âthe€administration€of€justice.ðð€[Citation.]ðð€(òòIbid.óó)Ð °($$ Ðà  à€In€recognition€of€this€conflict,€the€òòFlahertyóó€decision€acknowledged€that€"[i]f€the€issueÐ ° Ðâ âwhich€the€attorney€is€called€upon€to€decide€is€fairly€debatable,€then€under€his€oath€of€office,Ïhe€is€not€only€authorized€but€obligated€to€present€and€urge€his€client's€claim€upon€the€court.ððÏ[Citation.]ðð€(31€Cal.3d€at€p.€647.)€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€also€held€that€anÏattorney€ð ðmust€be€zealous€and€must€resolve€all€doubts€and€ambiguous€legal€questions€inÏfavor€of€his€or€her€client.ðð€€(òòMcCoy€v.€Court€of€Appealsóó€(1988)€486€U.S.€429,€444.)€Ð °  ÐMoreover,€as€noted€in€the€previous€section,€appointed€counsel€must€be€ð ðan€active€advocate,Ïrather€than€a€mere€friend€of€the€court€assisting€in€a€detached€evaluation€of€the€appellantððsÏclaims.ðð€€(òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€òòsupraóó,€469€U.S.€387,€394.)Ð ° ÐÔ€¼,/ »‹ŠÇÔò òòòDISCUSSIONóóó óÐ ° ÐÔ‡ŠÇ‹ »¼,/Ôà  àWhat€impact€should€a€clientððs€wishes€have€on€counselððs€obligation€to€make€the€bestÐ Ø( Ðtactical€decision€about€which€issue€or€issues€to€brief?€€In€every€case,€appellate€counselÏshould€solicit€his€clientððs€opinion€as€to€the€nature€of€the€issues€to€be€raised€on€appeal.€€In€soÏdoing,€counsel€should€proceed€with€an€open€mind€and€should€engage€in€a€meaningfulÏdialogue€with€his€client.€€However,€following€the€period€of€consultation,€it€is€counsel,€notÏthe€client,€who€must€make€the€ultimate€decision€as€to€which€issues€will€be€raised.Ìà  àIn€this€regard,€it€is€first€necessary€to€establish€that€there€is€a€distinction€between€theÏconstitutional€role€of€counsel€and€his€ethical€role.€€Pursuant€to€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó€(1983)€463Ð Ø&("" ÐU.S.€745,€746,€it€is€settled€that€appellate€counsel€does€not€have€a€ð ðconstitutional€duty€to€raiseÏevery€nonfrivolous€issue€requested€by€the€defendant.ðð€€As€indicated€by€the€òòJonesóó€Ô_Ôdecision,Ð Ø*(&& Ðthe€ABAððs€position€on€this€question€is€not€particularly€clear.€(òòIdóó.€at€p.€753,€fn.€6.)€€The€ABAÐ ° ÐStandards€for€Criminal€Appeals€seems€to€suggest€that€counsel€should€acquiesce€to€a€client'sÏinsistence€that€a€particular€issue€be€raised€on€appeal.€€(ABA€Standards€for€Criminal€JusticeÏ21-3.2,€p.€21.42€(2d€ed.€1980).)€€However,€the€ABA€Defense€Function€Standards€provide€Ïthat€€with€certain€exceptions€(such€as€the€plea€to€be€entered,€whether€to€waive€jury€trial,€andÏwhether€the€client€will€testify)€ð ðstrategic€and€tactical€decisions€are€the€exclusive€province€ofÏthe€defense€counsel,€after€consultation€with€the€client.ðð€€(òòJonesóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€753,€fn.€6,€citing€Ð °  Ðthe€ABA€Defense€Function€Standards,€Standard€€4-5.2.)€€Whatever€the€position€of€the€ABAÏin€this€regard,€as€the€òòJonesóó€court€noted,€ð ðthe€fact€that€the€ABA€may€have€chosen€to€recognizeÐ ° Ða€given€practice€as€desirable€or€appropriate€does€not€mean€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ô€practice€is€required€byÏthe€Constitution.ðð€€(Jones,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€753,€fn.€6.)€€Moreover,€the€ABA€position,€if€it€indeedÐ ° Ðdoes€require€counsel€to€accede€to€the€clientððs€choice€of€issues,€does€not€withstand€scrutinyÏunder€California€law.€€Ìà  àWhile€the€law€is€not€crystal€clear€in€terms€of€the€resolution€of€these€issues,€it€is€theÏcase€that€in€California,€counsel€has€the€authority€to€make€all€of€the€tactical€decisions€in€a€caseÏexcept€for€those€ð ðfundamentalðð€choices€which€only€the€defendant€can€make.€€(òòPeople€v.Ð °" ÐFriersonóó€(1985)€39€Cal.3d€803,€813.)€€Importantly,€with€the€exception€of€capital€cases,Ð °$  Ðcounsel€has€the€power€to€choose€those€defenses€which€will€be€raised€at€trial.€€(òòIbidóó.)€€ByÐ °&"" Ðâ âanalogy,€the€identical€rule€should€apply€to€the€issues€to€be€raised€on€appeal.Ð °($$ Ðà  àAppellate€issues€must€be€carefully€crafted€to€fit€the€facts€of€the€case.€€Moreover,€theÏâ âexperienced€appellate€attorney€(like€the€veteran€trial€lawyer)€is€in€a€much€better€position€toÏmake€a€determination€as€to€the€likelihood€that€a€particular€claim€will€prevail.€€Given€thisÏindisputable€truth,€appellate€counsel€must€have€the€freedom€to€determine€the€nature€of€theÏissues€to€be€raised€on€appeal.Ìà  àThere€is€one€strong€voice€in€opposition€to€this€view.€€According€to€Justice€Brennan,Ïit€is€counselððs€role€ð ðto€function€as€the€instrument€and€defender€of€the€clientððs€autonomy€andÏdignity€in€all€phases€of€the€criminal€process.ðð€€(òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€òòsupraóó,€463€U.S.€745,€763Ð ° Ð(dis.€opn.€of€Brennan,€J.).)€€Thus,€in€the€interests€of€ensuring€a€trusting€relationship€betweenÏattorney€and€client,€it€was€Justice€Brennanððs€opinion€that€the€attorney€should€defer€to€theÏclientððs€decision€as€to€the€issues€to€be€raised.€€(òòIdóó.€at€pp.€761„762.)Ð ° Ðà  àI€think€we€all€would€agree€that€counsel€has€a€duty€to€treat€his€client€and€his€opinionsÏwith€great€respect.€€At€the€same€time,€however,€counselððs€highest€duty€is€to€zealously€striveÏfor€the€best€possible€result€for€the€client.€€Thus,€it€is€unethical€for€counsel€to€act€as€a€mereÏð ðmouthpiece€for€the€client,€.€.€.ðð€€(ABA€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€(2d€ed.€1986ÏSupplement)€Comment€to€Standard€4„1.1,€p.€4„9.)€€Indeed,€counsel€best€represents€his€clientÏby€relying€on€his€own€trained€professional€judgment.Ìà  àð ðThe€lawyerððs€value€to€each€client€stems€in€large€part€from€the€lawyerððs€independentÏstance,€as€a€professional€representative€rather€than€as€an€ordinary€agent.€€What€the€lawyerÏcan€accomplish€for€any€one€client€depends€heavily€on€his€or€her€reputation€for€professionalÐ °*&& Ðintegrity.€€Court€and€opposing€counsel€will€treat€the€lawyer€with€the€respect€that€facilitatesÏfurthering€the€clientððs€interests€only€if€the€lawyer€maintains€proper€professional€detachmentÏand€conduct€in€accord€with€accepted€professional€standards.ðð€€(ABA€Standards€for€CriminalÏJustice€(2d€ed.€1986€Supp.)€Comment€to€Standard€4„1.1,€p.€4„9.)Ìà  àReturning€to€the€first€factual€scenario€discussed€above,€I€would€suggest€that€appellateÏcounsel€do€whatever€he€or€she€can€to€establish€a€relationship€of€trust€with€the€client€so€thatÏthe€client€can€be€convinced€that€it€is€not€in€his€or€her€best€interest€to€argue€a€frivolous€issueÏon€appeal.€€If€such€a€relationship€can€be€established,€perhaps€the€client€can€be€convinced€thatÏthe€inclusion€of€frivolous€issues€could€jeopardize€the€meritorious€claims€which€could€resultÏin€a€reversal.€€Write€the€client,€arrange€confidential€phone€calls,€and€if€all€else€fails,€contactÏthe€staff€attorney€at€the€appellate€project€to€see€if€a€personal€visit€can€be€authorized.€ÏSometimes€a€face„to„face€meeting€with€the€client€will€convince€him€or€her€that€the€attorneyÏis€truly€the€clientððs€ally.€€In€this€manner,€the€attorney€may€be€able€to€resolve€the€ethicalÏdilemmas€posed€by€the€first€hypothetical.Ìà  àFactual€Scenario€#2€poses€a€somewhat€different€situation€since€the€issues€the€clientÏwants€raised€are€not€wholly€frivolous,€but€merely€weak€with€no€real€chance€of€success.€€InÏsuch€a€situation,€the€risk€of€losing€credibility€with€the€court€is€not€as€strong.€€Thus,€in€suchÏa€situation,€I€would€suggest€that€any€nonfrivolous€issue€requested€by€the€client€be€briefed.€ÏHowever,€I€also€offer€the€following€caveat.€€If€it€is€counselððs€professional€judgment€thatÏaddition€of€the€issues€would€hurt€the€clientððs€interest€by€undercutting€a€stronger€argument,Ð °*&& Ðor€inordinately€lengthening€the€opening€brief,€which€itself€could€impact€on€counselððsÏcredibility€with€the€court,€then€I€would€switch€back€to€the€solution€offered€in€scenario€#1.€ÏReach€out€to€the€client€and€try€to€convince€him€or€her€of€your€sincerity€and€your€desire€toÏzealously€represent€his€or€her€interests.€€Hopefully,€this€Ô_ÔapproachñcñesñcñÔ_Ô€will€resolve€the€ethicalÏconflict€in€a€manner€which€most€benefits€the€client.Ô#†¼,/ »‹ŠÇ†#ÔÐ °  ÐÌÓ”vÓÓ‚vÓÓ  ÓÔ€ të! »¼,/ÔTHE€ETHICS€OF€RAISING€AN€APPELLATE€ISSUE€WHICHÐ Ô$  ÐWOULD€BE€MERITLESS€IF€THE€RECORD€ON€APPEAL€WEREÏCOMPLETE.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€¼,/ »! tëÔÔ‡ŠÇ‹ »¼,/Ôà  àOne€of€the€primary€rules€of€appellate€practice€is€that€the€reviewing€court€may€notÐ Ä Ðconsider€matters€outside€the€record€on€appeal.€€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMerriamÔ_Ô€óó(1967)€66€Cal.2d€390,Ð Ä Ð396„397.)€€Thus,€in€the€ordinary€case,€appellate€counsel€need€not€be€concerned€about€mattersÏwhich€do€not€appear€in€the€record.€€However,€upon€occasion,€a€situation€will€arise€whichÏcreates€ethical€questions.€€In€order€to€investigate€this€problem,€the€following€hypotheticalÏwill€be€useful.Ìà  àAt€trial,€the€defendant€is€charged€with€rape.€€In€her€testimony,€the€victim€testifies€thatÏshe€did€not€consent€to€intercourse.€€At€the€same€time,€the€victim€testifies€that€she€did€notÏconsent€to€intercourse.€€At€the€same€time,€the€victim€admits€that€she€engaged€in€consensualÏkissing€with€the€defendant,€gave€him€a€lengthy€back€rub€in€her€bedroom,€and€did€notÏunequivocally€say€she€did€not€consent.€€Consistent€with€this€evidence,€the€defendant€testifiesÏthat€he€believed€that€the€victim€wished€to€have€sexual€intercourse€with€him.Ð Ä+'& Ðà  àAs€is€readily€apparent,€the€foregoing€facts€constitute€substantial€evidence€in€supportÏof€a€òòÔ_ÔMayberryÔ_Ô€óódefense€(i.e.€the€defendant€reasonably€believed€that€consent€had€been€given).€Ð ° Ð(òòPeople€v.€Williams€óó(1992)€4€Cal.4th€354,€360„362;€òòPeople€v.€May€óó(1989)€213€Cal.App.3dÐ ° Ð118,€127.)€€Nonetheless,€the€record€reveals€that€the€court€did€not€instruct€on€the€defense.€ÏInsofar€as€an€instruction€on€the€defense€must€be€given€by€the€court€òòÔ_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ôóó€(òòMay,€supra,Ð °  Ðóó213€Cal.App.3d€at€p.€124),€appellate€counsel€is€in€the€admirable€position€of€having€a€strongÐ °  Ðissue€to€raise.Ìà  àNonetheless,€prior€to€briefing€the€issue,€appellate€counsel€contacts€trial€counsel€inÏorder€to€discuss€the€case.€€During€their€conversation,€appellate€counsel€notes€that€he€will€beÏraising€the€òòWilliams€óóissue.€€In€consternation,€trial€counsel€advises€appellate€counsel€that€heÐ ° Ðspecifically€told€the€judge€during€the€instructional€conference€that€he€did€not€want€aÏòòWilliams€óóinstruction€for€the€tactical€reason€that€he€wanted€to€rely€solely€on€the€defense€ofÐ ° Ðactual€consent.€€Apparently,€the€parties€neglected€to€place€the€instructional€conference€onÏthe€record.Ìà  àGiven€this€scenario,€counsel€is€faced€with€a€difficult€problem.€€On€the€face€of€theÏrecord,€a€meritorious€legal€issue€is€available.€€However,€had€the€instructional€conferenceÏbeen€made€part€of€the€record,€the€issue€would€vanish.€€(See€òòPeople€v.€Cooper€óó(1991)€53Ð °$  ÐCal.3d€771,€830„831;€defense€counsel€is€entitled€to€make€the€reasonable€tactical€choice€thatÏcertain€instructions€not€be€given.)€€In€light€of€these€circumstances,€the€question€is€whetherÏcounsel€may€ethically€brief€the€òòWilliams€óóissue.Ð °*&& Ðà  àIn€my€view,€the€answer€to€this€question€turns€on€an€analysis€of€whether€it€isÏð ðconsistent€with€truthðð€to€raise€an€appellate€issue€which€would€be€meritless€if€the€record€onÏappeal€was€complete.€€(Business€and€Professions€Code€section€6068,€subd.€(d).)€€In€thisÏregard,€it€is€essential€to€note€that€the€concealment€of€material€facts€is€ethically€proscribed.€Ï(òòDavidson€v.€State€Bar,€supra,€óó17€Cal.3d€570,€574.)Ð °  Ðà  àRaising€the€issue€might€be€viewed€as€akin€to€the€presentation€of€evidence€known€toÏbe€false.€€The€presentation€of€false€evidence€is€strictly€proscribed€(òòNix€v.€Ô_ÔWhitesideÔ_Ô€óó(1986)Ð °  Ð475€U.S.€157,€167„169;€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€of€the€State€Bar€of€California,€ruleÏ5„200(A);€counsel€shall€employ€ð ðsuch€means€only€as€are€consistent€with€truth.ðð)Ìà  àñ7ñOñ7ñn€tñ9ññ3ñhñ3ññ9ññ:ñhe€other€hand,€I€would€also€note€that€ñ:ññ;ññ:ñhteñ:ññ;ññ<ñthe€resolution€of€the€issue€is€not€starklyÏclear.€€ñ<ññ=ññ<ñiñ<ññ=ññ=ñIñ=ññ>ñn€this€regard,€the€followñ>ññ?ññ>ñoñ>ññ?ññ>ññ>ññ@ñing€Ô_ÔcounterargumentÔ_Ô€might€be€considered.Ìñ@ññ?ññ>ñiñ>ññ>ñnñ>ññ>ñgñ>ññ>ñ€ñ>ññ?ññ;ññ:ñ€ñ:ññ;ññ@ñà  àñ@ññBññAñañAññBññBñAñBññCñs€is€noted€above,€the€appellate€court€and€counsel€are€limited€to€the€record€on€appeal.€Ï(òòñCññDñÔ_ÔMerriamÔ_Ô,€supra,€óóñDññEñ66€Cal.2d€at€pp.€396„397.)€€ñEññFññEñiñEññFññFñIñFññGñn€addition,€with€respect€to€instructions€whichÐ ° ÐmusñGññHññGñhñGññHññIñt€be€given€by€the€court€òòñIññJñÔ_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ô,ñJññKññJñ€ñJññKññLñóóñLññNññMñ,€ñMññNññOñ€the€defendant€cannot€be€said€to€have€waived€the€claimÐ ° Ðunless€the€record€affirmatively€shows€ð ðthat€counsel€made€a€conscious,€deliberate€tacticalÏchoice€between€having€the€instruction€and€ñOññPññOñhnñOññPññQñnot€having€it.ðð€€(òòñQññRñCooperñRññSññRñ€ñRññSññRññRññTñ,€supra,€óóñTññUñ53€Cal.3d€at.€p.Ð °" Ð831.)Ìà  àñWññVñvñVññWññWñVñWññXñiewed€from€this€perspective,€ñXññYññXñti€ñXññYññZñit€might€be€argued€that€counsel€is€entitled€to€rñZññ[ññZñeañZññ[ññ\ñaise€theÐ °&"" Ðâ âòòñ\ññ^ññ]ñwillñ]ññ^ññ_ñWilliams€óóñ_ññ`ñissue€since€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€preclude€the€claim.€€ñ`ññaññ`ñiñ`ññaññañIñaññbñn€this€regard,Ð °($$ Ðcounsel€might€defend€his€actions€based€on€the€analogy€that€a€trial€attorney€has€no€duty€toÏadvise€the€government€about€an€inculpatory€witness€who€is€known€only€to€the€Ô_Ôdefense.ñbññ_ññ\ñóóñ\ññ_ñÔ#†¼ì* »‹ŠÁì ¤#ÔÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðâ âÌà  àÌÌà  à