Final answer:
A lawyer's duty of reasonable diligence implies providing legal representation that meets an objective standard of reasonableness, ensuring effective counsel without conflicts of interest and being mindful of significant consequences such as deportation, as emphasized by Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky and underlined by the right to an attorney in the U.S. legal system.
Step-by-step explanation:
A lawyer must act with reasonable diligence, which means they are expected to exercise the proper level of care and commitment required to provide effective legal representation. This includes meeting an objective standard of reasonableness in their performance, which is judged based on the prevailing professional norms. Two key Supreme Court cases that help elucidate the standards for legal counsel are Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky. These cases set forth criteria for determining when legal assistance might be considered ineffective, including situations that could affect the outcome of a legal proceeding or have significant consequences, such as deportation.
Additionally, the right to an attorney is a fundamental aspect of legal representation in the United States, as delineated by the Sixth Amendment and elaborated upon in cases like Glasser v. United States. A lawyer must not have conflicts of interest and is mandated to defend their client's rights, including the right to a fair trial, which requires representation that is not impaired by overwork or underfunding, as indicated in the historical context given.
Lawyers are crucial in ensuring the legal process is fair and efficient, providing justice to reflect the diverse communities they serve. A well-functioning legal system requires that defense attorneys meet these professional standards to effectively represent their clients. Without reasonable diligence from legal counsel, the integrity of the judicial system and the rights of the accused could be seriously compromised.