Final answer:
An attorney must disclose a materially and adversely impacting evaluation to the client and explain its potential impact. This follows legal ethics and ensures clients are informed, aligning with cases such as Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky.
Step-by-step explanation:
If an attorney knows or reasonably should know that an evaluation is likely to affect the client's interests materially and adversely, the attorney must disclose the evaluation to the client and explain its potential impact on their interests. This is not only a matter of professional responsibility but also a matter of legal ethics to ensure that clients can make informed decisions about their representation and potential outcomes. The adversarial judicial system requires open sharing of evidence between parties, which is termed disclosure. This disclosure ensures that all relevant information is considered in the adjudication of a case. In line with landmark cases such as Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky, it is clear that attorneys are expected to provide advice that meets certain standards of reasonableness and to advise clients adequately, both on the potential implications of legal actions and on consequences such as deportation. Furthermore, under Glasser v. United States, counsel must avoid conflicts of interest to prevent violation of the Right to an Attorney and ensure that their assistance is effective under the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, the correct action for the attorney in this situation is to disclose the evaluation according to professional and ethical guidelines.