The Supreme Court takes up two more lawyering cases this week: Padilla v. Kentucky today and Perdue v. Kenny A. tomorrow.
The Padilla case involves an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a legal permanent resident whose attorney incorrectly advised him that pleading guilty to three drug-related charges would not result in deportation. The ABA in its amicus brief argues on behalf of Mr. Padilla that a lawyer's duty of competence includes the duty to be informed about the consequences of a guilty plea and to advise the client accordingly. It will be interesting to see if the ABA gets the same amount of attention here as it did during last week's oral argument in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter.
Perdue questions whether a fee awarded pursuant to a federal fee-shifting statute may be enhanced based on the quality of performance and results obtained. At stake is a fee award of more than $10.5 million to attorneys who represented a class action of 3,000 foster care children against the State of Georgia, $4.5 million of which represents the enhancement for performance and results. The Solicitor General supports the petitioner in arguing that such an enhancement is not allowed because these factors are already taken into account in the lodestar calculation. While the ABA has not weighed in on this case, a number of state bar associations and public interest lawyers have filed briefs in support of the enhanced award. A group of prominent law and economics scholars also argue in favor of allowing such enhancements.
Update: The Court added an eighth lawyering case today, granting certiorari to Holland v. Florida. This case presents the question of whether an attorney's "gross negligence" in failing to timely file a federal habeas corpus petition warrants an extension of the filing deadline. Petitioner Holland specifically complains of his attorney's failure to communicate with him about the status of his case, and his attorney's failure to file the habeas petition despite repeated instructions to do so. Interestingly, this is the fourth lawyering case appealed from the Eleventh Circuit. The others are Wood v. Allen, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, and Perdue v. Kenny A.