Kentucky Supreme Court discusses Plea Bargain system, and acknowledges that attorneys cannot ethically waive their (11.42) liability to their client in a Plea Bargain.
Aug. 21, 2014
(the following LawReader synopsis is available for our subscribers. Every Ky. appellate decision is summarized and published on LawReader each week.)
|Click to Read Full Text
TO BE PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BY AND THROUGH THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS FOR THE EASTERN AND
WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT
|OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
AFFIRMING KBA ETHICS OPINION E-435
“Ours is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials[.]” 1 is the Plea bargaining is “not some adjuncto the criminal justice system; it criminal justice system.”
The pervasiveness of plea bargain agreements in the Courts of the Commonwealth cannot be overstated. Today, we deal with the ethical ramifications of one aspect of this “horse trading between prosecutor and defense counsel.
“The United States Attorneys for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky (United States) have moved this Court to review the merits of Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Ethics Opinion E-435, an ethics advisory opinion, which finds the use of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) waivers in plea agreements violates our Rules of Professional Conduct.
We agree with the KBA that the use of IAC waivers in plea bargain agreements (1) creates a non-waivable conflict of interest between the defendant and his attorney, (2) operates effectively to limit the attorney’s liability for malpractice, and (3) induces, by the prosecutor’s insertion of the waiver into plea agreements, an ethical breach by defense counsel.
Consequently, we hold that E-435 accurately states our ethical rules.