What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil case?

Defendant recognizes that because counsel did not object to this argument as a misstatement of the law and because an admonition to the jury could have cured any prejudice to the defense, any contention of prosecutorial misconduct is forfeited. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.) Instead, defendant contends that his attorney's

Page 9

failure to object deprived him of his state and federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel.

"'To establish a violation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that his counsel's performance was deficient when measured against the standard of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel's deficient performance resulted in prejudice to defendant in the sense that it "so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result."' [Citations.]" (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 674 -675, citing and quoting, inter alia, Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686.) Stated another way, ineffective assistance of counsel is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to the defendant in the absence of counsel's failing. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, at p. 694.)

We do not ordinarily address a question of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, unless the appellate record discloses that there can be no conceivable tactical purpose for counsel's act or omission. If the appellate record sheds no light on reasons for counsel's act or omission, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.⁴ (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997)

Page 10

15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) However, if the defendant has failed to show that the challenged actions of counsel were prejudicial, a reviewing court may reject the claim on that ground without reaching the question of whether counsel's performance was deficient or was an appropriate choice of tactics. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697.)