Poor lawyering: a study on the legal assessment of the quality of criminal lawyering and the remedies available

Suspects and defendants have the right to a lawyer during criminal proceedings. What then if the lawyers do not discharge their duties properly? Can the accused ask to set aside a conviction or get a new trial on grounds of the poor quality of the legal assistance? Can he take action against the idle or incompetent lawyer? And how can the quality of lawyering be measured in light of the autonomy of the legal profession? These questions still have no answer. Much has lately been done in Europe to reinvigorate defence rights. But while lawmakers and courts strive to increase the presence of lawyers during proceedings, little or nothing is said about the quality of the assistance. Few cases are known (mostly from common law countries) that discuss the problem of inadequate defence. This indifference can no longer be tolerated. It is self-evident that the accused need not just a lawyer, but a good lawyer, someone skilled, vigilant, active. By conducting a comparative research in three countries the study wants to establish when defendants can lament the bad quality of legal assistance and with what consequences, taking into account the powers of lawyers and the autonomy of the legal profession. By evaluating the impact of lawyers' action on the outcome of the proceedings, the study will discuss to what extent the quality of the legal assistance can be assessed by courts and what remedies are most appropriate against defective or incompetent representation.