Abstract
At bottom, the power of the state to intervene and effectively control the relationship of a private attorney with that lawyer's client before trial and conviction is simply too onerous to be justified on the basis of crime control alone. The most persuasive arguments inMonsanto andCaplin & Drysdale are those of the dissent, which relied on the centrality to the sixth amendment of the relationship of trust that is fostered in the private attorney-client relationship. The failure to honor the right to counsel of choice results, as the dissent noted, in the possibility of the socialization of criminal defense services and diminution of counsel's independence.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
