Select Page

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that in all criminal cases the defendant “”shall enjoy . . . the Assistance of Counsel.””  The United States Supreme Court has extended this guarantee to include the “right to the effective assistance of counsel.”  Further, it is clearly established that this right includes representation that is free from conflicts of interest. Lawyers owe their clients a duty of loyalty, including the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that a lawyer who is “”burdened by an actual conflict of interest . . . breaches the duty of loyalty, perhaps the most basic of counsel’s duties.””

The United States Supreme Court, however, has not been clear about the consequences when the right to conflict-free counsel is violated.  The Court’’s landmark decision in Cuyler v. Sullivan addressed the constitutional ramifications surrounding an individual’’s right to conflict-free counsel.  In Cuyler, the Court created a conflict of interest standard whereby a defendant must show that defense counsel ““actively represented conflicting interests”” and that ““an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’’s performance.””  The United States Supreme Court commented that the “”adverse effect”” standard was a lower threshold of proof than a showing of prejudice, but neglected to define the meaning of ““adverse effect” . . . .