Legal Malpractice Requires Showing of "Actual Innocence" by Criminal Defendants

From Lawyers Weekly USA:

To succeed in a legal malpractice case against his attorney, a criminal defendant must prove that he was "actually innocent" of the underlying charges against him, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled. A psychiatrist and his wife were indicted on 18 criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, bank and tax fraud and filing false statements. On the advice of counsel, they agreed to plead guilty to two of the counts.

Case: Ang v. Martin, Washington Supreme Court No. 74698-2. June 23, 2005.

Comments

Steve said…
Not guilty isn't the same as innocent. It's possible that the person committed the crime but wasn't found guilty due to several different factors, such as lack of evidence or a compelling closing argument to the jury.
Anonymous said…
I would be interested to know what kind of admonishments and findings the judges in Washington make at the time of plea. In Harris County, the judges admonish and question defendants at the time of the plea to make sure they understand fully what is happening and that their pleas are voluntary. That kind of interaction has been the basis on which the appellate courts here have turned away allegations of this sort.
Anonymous said…
Your blog is great! It's hard to find blogs with good content and people talking about tax fraud these days! I have a secret tax fraud exposed if you want to come check it out

Popular posts from this blog

Careful With Those Lawyer Jokes....

The Complete Administrative Law Lecture Series (142 Videos) by Professor Dru Stevenson

Special-Interest Law Schools