"Lafler and Frye: A New Constitutional Standard for Negotiation"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper by Rishi Batra, now available via SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In a pair of decisions handed down in 2012, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court extended the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel to cover ineffective assistance by defense counsel solely in the plea-bargaining phase. Recognizing that pleas account for ninety-five percent of all criminal convictions, the court stated that “defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires.”  This paper explores the implications of this new constitutional minimum standard for counsel in the plea bargaining context.

The paper examines the Frye and Lafler decisions in light of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, and shows that the Court made broad rulings that extend ineffective assistance jurisprudence to the larger negotiation context of plea bargains.  It then looks to existing standards of professional practice, such as ABA standards, case law, and negotiation texts, to find guidance for lower courts in determining how ineffective assistance may be shown in the negotiation of plea bargains.  Most importantly, it looks at new types of claims that defendants may bring that may now be considered ineffective assistance: (1) poor preparation, (2) trading off the interests of one client for another, (3) taking no time for a plea bargain negotiation, (4) antagonizing the prosecutor, and (5) refusing to bargain.  For each of these we attempt to apply existing standards to consider whether a court could uphold an ineffectiveness claim based on poor attorney performance.  It ends by examining other hurdles that petitioners will have to face in bringing these claims, and offering suggestions for future scholarly work.