The Kelley Institute
Law of Lawyering
Supreme Court Review
Cases tagged as: legal advice
Burt v. Titlow
The Court held that the Sixth Circuit failed to apply the correct standard ("doubly deferential" standard) of review when it did not credit the state district court's reasonable factual findings when the Circuit assumed ineffective assistance of counsel where the record was silent.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (PDF)
The Court reversed and remanded, 5-4, deciding that respondents lacked Article III standing to challenge FISA Amendments Act of 2008, 50 U.S.C. Section 1881(1)(a). The Court thus did not determine whether the federal wiretapping anti-terrorism program interferes with attorneys' ethical obligations.
Hinton v. Alabama
134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014) (PDF)
Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was supported when defense counsel in a capital murder trial failed to seek additional funds to replace an inadequate expert when that failure was based not on any strategic decision, but rather on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000. The Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the case for reconsideration of whether the attorney's deficient performance was prejudicial.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) (PDF)
18 USSCS sec. 2339B did not require proof of intent to further an illegal terrorists organizations activities. The statute was not impermissibly vague as applied to plaintiff's proposed activities which included training and expert advice or assistance. The statute did not prohibit independent advocacy but providing even benign support to a foreign terrorist organization bolstered terrorist activities
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States
130 S. Ct. 1324 (2010) (PDF)
Attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA, and as such Section 526(a)(4) prohibits an attorney only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose. Section 528's advertising disclosure requirements are valid under the First Amendment as applied to Milavetz.