NCJ Number
37554
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (SUMMER 1976) Pages: 59-70
Date Published
1976
Length
12 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES THE ROOTS, RATIONALE, AND WISDOM OF THE CONCEPT OF IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL MALPRACTICE SUITS FOR THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY.
Abstract
THIS IMMUNITY APPEARS TO HAVE FOUND SOME REPOSE IN A MINORITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. HOWEVER, PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND COURT-APPOINTED LAWYERS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EITHER THE SOURCE OF THEIR COMPENSATION OR THEIR CLIENTELE AFFECTS THE QUALITY AND EXTENT OF THEIR SERVICES OR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES. SINCE THE MOST SERIOUS DANGER INVOLVED IN A MALPRACTICE CLAIM IS FINANCIAL, AS LONG AS THAT EXPOSURE CAN BE PROTECTED BY INSURANCE OR INDEMNITY CONTRACTS, IMMUNITY IS NOT ONLY UNDESIRABLE BUT UNNECESSARY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)