MINNS, AN INMATE IN A VIRGINIA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ASKED HELP FROM PAUL, THE DESIGNATED ATTORNEY FOR THE FACILITY, IN PREPARING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. IN SPITE OF TWO FORMAL WRITTEN REQUESTS AND REPEATED PHONE CALLS, PAUL NEVER REPLIED. A MONTH LATER, MINNS FILED ACTION UNDER U.S. CODE 42, SECTION 1983, IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION, HOLDING THAT COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS DO NOT ACT UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW. ON APPEAL, THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT UPHELD THE DECISION BUT EXPLICITLY BYPASSED THE ISSUE OF STATE ACTION. INSTEAD IT INVOKED IMBLER V. PACHTMAN AND PIERSON V. RAY, WHICH GRANT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO STATE JUDGES AND PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, AND HELD THAT STATE-SUPPLIED ATTORNEYS HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO SECTION 1983 ACTIONS. THE DECISION IS CRITICIZED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES CURRENT NOTIONS OF INDIGENTS' RIGTHS AND ALSO SIDESTEPS THE PROOF OF PERFORMANCE TESTS INHERENT IN THE IMMUNITY GRANTED JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS. BOTH JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS HAVE OTHER PUBLIC CHECKS ON PERFORMANCE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE TO SOCIETY. STATE-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CLIENTS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS A BETTER STANDARD. STATE-SUPPLIED ATTORNEYS THEN WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR RECKLESSNESS, BUT THE STANDARDS WOULD NOT BE BURDENSOME. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY MAKES RIGHTS TO ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION UNDER THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS AN ILLUSION. (GLR)