CBA Record Feb-March 2015

41 / 52

CBA RECORD 41
ETHICS EXTRA
BY MICHAEL P. SANDUSKY
A Case of First Impression Regarding
an Incompetent Client
In People v. Holt, the Illinois appellate
court for the second district decided a
case of first impression regarding how
a lawyer should treat a client’s refusal to
accept her incompetence to stand trial.
998 N.E.2d 933 (2013).
Lawyer and client typically work
together to achieve the client’s goals. While
the client typically decides the strategy
and the lawyer the tactics, on occasion
they differ so greatly as to how to proceed
that the relationship is ruptured. On rare
occasions, the lawyer’s failure to heed the
client’s wishes regarding tactics may result
in a violation of the rules of professional
conduct. What happens in Illinois when an
incompetent client charges her lawyer with
ineffective assistance of counsel when the
client herself is found unfit to stand trial?
Holt addresses that issue.
In Holt, the defendant was charged with
criminal trespass to a residence. During
that proceeding, the State “advised the
trial court that there was a bona fide doubt
as to Holt’s fitness to stand trial.” When
a bona fide issue of a defendant’s ability
to stand trial is raised, the State has the
burden to prove that no such issue exists.
Here, the State conceded that it could not
meet its burden, and a directed verdict
was grant in favor of defendant. The court
concluded that, with proper care, Holt
was likely to attain fitness within one year
and remanded her to the Department of
Human Services for in-patient mental
health treatment.
Holt appealed from the court’s finding
that she was unfit to stand trial. She alleged
that her lawyer did not comply with her
demands, did not present an argument
as her advocate, and therefore failed to
provide effective assistance of counsel for
failing to argue she was competent.
The Department of Human Services
determined Holt to be mentally fit to
stand trial between the time of the lower
court’s finding and the appeal, which thus
became moot. Nonetheless, the appellate
court proceeded with the appeal because of
the stigma attached to being unfit to stand
trial because of mental illness. The appellate
court held that the public defender had
provided Holt with effective assistance.
The appellate court then addressed
whether a lawyer is bound by a client’s
demand that the client is fit to stand trial
despite evidence to the contrary. The court
held that an attorney is not bound to abide
by the client’s demand in such a situa-
tion. The Illinois appellate court followed
the rationale of the California Court of
Appeals in People v. Bolden, 99 Cal. App.
375 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). In Bolden, the
court articulated that “When the attorney
doubts the present sanity of his client, he
may assume his client cannot act in his
own best interest, and [the lawyer] may
act even contrary to the express desires of
his client.” The Bolden court held that to
do otherwise would lead to a violation of
the defendant’s right to due process (which
prohibits conviction of persons who are
adjudicated unfit to stand trial). In accord
with the California court in Bolden, the
Illinois court in Holt held that a lawyer
has not rendered ineffective assistance of
counsel when a mentally unfit defendant/
client demands that the defendant/client
not be declared unfit to stand trial. The
court stated that if a lawyer has a bona fide
reason to believe that the client is mentally
unfit to stand trial, the lawyer must act
diligently to see that the court decides
whether the client is incompetent. A client
who is unfit to stand trial cannot make a
competent decision as to what is in her best
interest. In such a situation, if the lawyer
follows the client’s erroneous demand to
stand trial, the lawyer commits error that
is prejudicial to the client. The court thus
concluded that the assistance provided by
counsel in Holt was effective and that law-
yers facing similar dilemmas in the future
should act accordingly.
Mike Sandusky is a Morrissey
Scholar at the John Marshall
LawSchool, with an anticipated
JD in January 2016
The Latest in Technology…
for Free
The CBA’s LawPracticeManagement &Technol-
ogy Division regularly sponsors demonstrations
of hardware and software geared to legal
professionals. In an hour or less, you will learn
how to use common technologies to be more
productive, efficient, and tech savvy!
Live demos are held in-person at the CBA or join
us virtually from your desktop (see upcoming
live sessions at . Com-
plimentary for CBAmembers. $50 Nonmember.
No MCLE Credit. Law student members and
associate members are welcome.
More than 70 titles are available now. See our video
on demand library at