Final answer:
Lawyers are legally and ethically forbidden from advising a client to partake in crime or fraud. The assistance of counsel must meet certain reasonable standards and include advising on immigration risks. Public defenders, while available to those who cannot afford private representation, face resource constraints that can impact their performance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Lawyers have distinct ethical obligations and legal limitations when it comes to counseling clients on matters involving crime or fraud. One such limitation is that a lawyer cannot instruct or advise a client to engage in illegal or fraudulent activity. Additionally, cases like Glasser v. United States emphasize the importance of conflict-free representation under the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In instances such as Strickland v. Washington, lawyers must provide a reasonable standard of assistance, and failure to do so can undermine the legal process. In fact, when it comes to the risk of deportation, as highlighted in Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense attorneys have specific duties regarding the advice they provide to their clients.
Moreover, landmark rulings like Miranda v. Arizona stress the importance of ensuring that individuals are aware of their right to counsel to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The right to legal representation provided by court-appointed public defenders when a defendant cannot afford a private attorney is a principle that has been gradually expanded following cases like the Scottsboro trials (Gideon's Trumpet) to include not just federal courts but also state courts and for any jail time.
However, public defenders often face issues such as being understaffed or overworked, which might impact the quality of legal representation. This necessitates that defendants only win appeals on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel if serious errors that deprived them of a fair trial can be proven.