Is counsel not obliged to undertake a futile or frivolous action on behalf of a client?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from In re P. X., C042591., C042751. (Cal. App. 2003):
Counsel is not obliged to undertake futile or frivolous actions on behalf of a client. (Cf. People v. Constancio (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 533, 546, 116 Cal. Rptr. 910.) Here, the record showed that P. "isolated himself to play . . . ." Moreover, during
Page 21
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In a personal injury action brought by a former wife against her ex-partner in a civil action, in addition to a similar action against the husband in a separate action, can the court order return to husband in the civil action? (California, United States of America)
If counsel discovered that the burglary had been reduced to a misdemeanor, and lodged an objection below, would counsel have discovered that counsel had discovered that Counsel had discovered it was a misdemeanor? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a claim against counsel who failed to provide an explanation for the actions of counsel? (California, United States of America)
Is Counsel ineffective for not objecting or bringing a motion where the action would be futile? (California, United States of America)
In a personal injury action, in what circumstances will the trial court allow the defense counsel to comment on the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel? (California, United States of America)
Does Counsel's statements imply that Counsel never stated whether a witness's statement was made in connection with the matter on which counsel represented her? (California, United States of America)
Is attorney-client privilege waived with respect to legal opinion and advice given to the client by counsel? (California, United States of America)
Is a prosecutor's comment that defense counsel was seeking to "distract the jury from the evidence as an attack on counsel's integrity a fair response to defense counsel's remarks? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 170.6, subdivision (2) of the Peremptory Challenge Act require counsel to disclose the identity of the assigned judge to counsel before counsel for the moving party learns that the assigning judge has been identified? (California, United States of America)
Does a defense counsel have a duty to avoid making a frivolous or frivolous motion? (California, United States of America)
