Final answer:
Lawyers are ethically prohibited from making agreements that limit their liability to clients unless specific and recognized legal and ethical conditions are met. Ensuring the competence, diligence, and effectiveness of legal representation as per cases like Glasser v. United States and Strickland v. Washington is crucial to the legal profession.
Step-by-step explanation:
A lawyer must not make an agreement limiting the lawyer's liability to a client unless certain conditions are met that are recognized by law and professional ethical standards. This is typically to ensure that lawyers do not circumvent the duty of competence and diligence owed to their clients. The right to an attorney is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Notably, in cases like Glasser v. United States, the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to require that conflicts of interest, such as simultaneous representation of co-defendants, are avoided to ensure effective legal representation.
Moreover, as elucidated in Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky, lawyers are required to meet an objective standard of reasonableness in their performance, with a failure to do so potentially leading to relief for criminal defendants based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Lawyers must also provide adequate advice on critical matters such as the risk of deportation following a criminal conviction. Additionally, ethical rules prevent lawyers from making agreements that could potentially lead to a reduction of their responsibility to provide diligent and competent representation to their client.