Back to Legal Insights
Ineffective AssistanceSixth AmendmentStrickland

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: When Bad Lawyering Is Grounds to Appeal

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to competent counsel. When a trial attorney's errors fall below constitutional standards, an ineffective assistance claim can overturn a conviction.

Libre Litigation Inc.
May 21, 2026

Your Right to Competent Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees not just a lawyer — it guarantees a competent one. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the two-part test that governs ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims.

The Strickland Test

To win an IAC claim, you must prove two things:

1. Deficient Performance

Your attorney's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Courts presume that an attorney's decisions were sound trial strategy. To overcome that presumption, you must point to specific acts or omissions that no competent attorney would have made.

2. Prejudice

Your attorney's errors prejudiced you — meaning there is "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

Both prongs must be met. If you cannot show prejudice, the claim fails even if the attorney was objectively terrible.

Common Examples of Ineffective Assistance

  • Failure to investigate: — not interviewing witnesses who could have helped your defense
  • Failure to file suppression motions: — not challenging an illegal search or confession
  • Failure to object: — missing objections to inadmissible evidence or improper jury instructions
  • Conflict of interest: — representing co-defendants with conflicting interests
  • Failure to explain plea offers: — not advising a client of a favorable plea deal
  • Failure to retain experts: — in cases where forensic, medical, or mental health experts were essential
  • Inadequate cross-examination: of key prosecution witnesses
  • Failure to research the law: resulting in misinformed legal advice

    • Plea-Stage Ineffectiveness

    IAC claims also arise from the plea process. If your attorney failed to correctly advise you about the immigration consequences of a plea, or misadvised you about mandatory minimum sentences, or failed to communicate a better plea offer, you may have an IAC claim even if you pleaded guilty.

    Raising IAC Claims

    IAC claims are typically raised for the first time in post-conviction proceedings, not on direct appeal, because they often require evidence outside the trial record — such as what the attorney knew, what investigation was done, and what witnesses or evidence were available.

    In Michigan and many other states, you can raise IAC in a motion for relief from judgment (Rule 6.500) or in state habeas proceedings. Federal courts hear IAC claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

    The Ginther Hearing

    In Michigan, when an IAC claim is raised post-conviction, a defendant may be entitled to a Ginther hearing — an evidentiary hearing at which the trial attorney testifies about the reasons for their decisions. The attorney's testimony either supports or refutes the deficiency prong of Strickland.

    Why You Need an Appellate Specialist

    IAC claims require a different skill set than trial work. An appellate attorney reviews the entire trial record with fresh eyes, identifies the specific errors, researches applicable precedents, and presents the claim in a written brief that persuades an appellate court. If you believe your trial attorney failed you, consult a post-conviction specialist.

    Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different. Consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.