What is the mockery of justice standard? How does this compare to the reasonably competent attorney standard?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court said that due process requires not just counsel but effective counsel. But the Court did not tell us what "effective" means, so lower federal courts and state courts stepped in and adopted what has been called the "mockery of justice standard.". Under this standard, only lawyers whose behavior is so "shocking" that it turns the trial into a "joke" are constitutionally ineffective.

In actual cases, appellate courts have ruled that lawyers were not constitutionally ineffective—even when the lawyers slept through trials, came to court drunk, could not name a single precedent related to the case they were arguing, or were released from jail to represent their clients. The courts held that the lawyers had not turned the proceedings into a joke and, thus, had not met the mockery of justice standard. When one defendant claimed he got ineffective representation because his lawyer slept through the trial, the judge said, "You have a right to a lawyer; that doesn't mean you have a right to one who's awake.". That decision was affirmed by the reviewing court.

Most jurisdictions have abandoned the mockery of justice standard, replacing it with the "reasonably competent attorney standard.". According to this standard, judges measure lawyers' performance against the "customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.". Attorneys have to be more diligent under the reasonably competent attorney standard than under the mockery of justice standard.