Could a Vermont defense lawyer recommend a plea agreement waiving later ineffective-assistance claims?

Short answer Opinion 95-04 said the defense lawyer should not recommend a plea term cutting off post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims, because it could limit the lawyer's liability for malpractice under former DR 6-102(A).
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1995

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A state's attorney's office proposed plea language waiving appeals and collateral proceedings, including post-conviction relief and habeas corpus. The defense lawyer asked whether recommending that provision to a client complied with the former Code. The waiver could bar later challenges based on ineffective defense assistance or prosecutorial misconduct.

The committee applied former DR 6-102(A), which prohibited a lawyer from attempting to exonerate or limit personal malpractice liability to a client. It reasoned that the waiver could prevent the client from challenging defense counsel's work. The committee concluded that defense counsel should not recommend a plea agreement limiting the client's right to bring an ineffective-assistance claim in a post-conviction proceeding.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee reject every plea agreement?

A: No. It said a lawful plea agreement generally did not contravene the former Code; its concern was the provision cutting off challenges to counsel's representation.

Q: Why did the defense lawyer have a personal ethical concern?

A: Waiving an ineffective-assistance claim could limit the lawyer's own malpractice exposure, contrary to former DR 6-102(A).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Vermont DR 6-102(A) to defense counsel's proposed recommendation. The sample waiver also mentioned V.R.A.P.3(b), but the committee's ethical holding addressed waiver of post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 6-102(A).

Other authorities cited:

  • V.R.A.P.3(b).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace