NCJ Number
109205
Journal
Santa Clara Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1987) Pages: 279-297
Date Published
1987
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article advocates the adoption of a legally enforceable ethical duty on the part of the attorney defending a juvenile to present dispositional alternatives to the juvenile court.
Abstract
In juvenile court, the minor's probation officer files dispositional recommendations with the court prior to the juvenile's jurisdictional hearing or admission. If the juvenile's defense attorney offers no dispositional alternatives at the hearing, the court will have only the probation officer's recommendations to act upon. Often, the defense attorney offers no alternatives because he or she is ill-prepared or because counsel perceives the defense responsibilities as advising the client to admit or deny allegations or as arguing the legal merits of relevant defenses. It is argued that the defense attorney has an ethical duty to propose alternatives that are in the best interest of the minor client and to do less results in inadequate representation of the client. This ethical duty ought to be imposed by a Rule of Court requiring all counsel defending juveniles to file a dispositional plan with the court. 99 footnotes.