WPC+ #P,6WR b {6l8I'ݚO'ŝJ6)6Ww0B?'s>qo*o/u;)!8fH?qQw=fB(Ɇ^aQXl|Z_AAOrp=pſ6J=GG<Y"wH)>kqjxy-rm׋Gu>-yل1O|fB%aa)uBL\ 5K$fu'YTAmh6:֩*LZدm5_J 6< x#VJʳÜ^hz 3 FCX--Q!k{j\%j7k1]r,]ʖVc, c]Jn@ۺ<\ǩ>.;u:Xo"p MhZD| J2. wmŴ9PCǬN/%JR܋kxt|l\j#fUIN/ %} 0Y^ w4 m 1u( 72b 0!c 0w:: 0 0;;; 0   07 0 0 0D 1  B 0DBb 0HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6 (Copy 2)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,74 ڋ34onnie3|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)- -(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#StarPageciteas((Cite as: 112 Cal.App.4th 1351, *1356, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 10, **14)(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# CDFGJRSTx:Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List d  $ܧXXUSUS.,    1    _ԀForsimplicity,thisarticlewillrefertosuchclaimantsas defendants(their  postureinthecriminaljusticesystem),butitwillfocusprincipallyonthestandardsthey  mustmeetascivilplaintiffs.(#$  0  - -(M(3$ !GXXUSUS.,      0   !ܧXXUSUS.,  _ RQܧ  @@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @@VV"#ܧQR_#-ܧJanuary21,2006 H #ܧ->#~ -ܧ  WhentheDefendantBecomesaPlaintiff.....#ܧ-#      _Mܧ  PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY&LIABILITYSTANDARDS   FORCRIMINALAPPELLATEPRACTICE#ܧ _Mm#-ܧ  <    J.BradleyOConnell  z#ܧ-0#    RQܧ  @@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @@VV"#ܧQR#-ܧJanuary21,2006 H #ܧ-#RQܧ#ܧQRC# _Mܧ@@PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY&LIABILITY@@ P  STANDARDSFORCRIMINALAPPELLATEPRACTICE#ܧ _M#     RQܧ @" TableofContents D   #ܧQRo# I.StateMalpracticeStandards 󀀀 ..........................................................................1  II.FederalCivilRightsSuits.............................................................................5  III.DontWorry,YoureCovered......................................................................7      +8xXXdd8  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES       FEDERALCASES      2%#XHeckv.Humphrey(1984)   X 2%#2%#512U.S.477!!F%#.| | 6,7    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMirandav.ClarkCounty,Nevada(9thCir.2003)    X 2%#2%#319F.3d465""I%#. 6    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPolkCountyv.Dobson(1981)    X 2%#2%#454U.S.312""I%#.| | 6    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Preiser_Ԁv.Rodriguez(1973)    X 2%#2%#411U.S.475!!F%#.| | 6,7    X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATECASES      2%#XBird,_Marella_,Boxer&_Woolpert_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(2003)   X 2%#2%#106_Cal.App_.4th419""I%#."5   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Coscia_Ԁv.McKenna&_Cuneo_(2001)   X 2%#2%#25Cal.4th1194-!-!D%#.r r 13,7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInreClark(1993)   X 2%#2%#5Cal.4th780""I%#. 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInre_Golia_(1971)   X 2%#2%#16_Cal.App_.3d775""I%#.t t 4    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Redante_Ԁv._Yockelson_(2003) "  X 2%#2%#112_Cal.App_.4th1351U U A%#.#1,35,7 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XWileyv.CountyofSanDiego(1998) % !  X 2%#2%#19Cal.4th532""I%#.  2 &!"  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? +&' Ї  FEDERALSTATUTES     UnitedStatesCode    2%#X42U.S.C.1983""G%#. 57  ?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATESTATUTES       2%#X CodeofCivilProcedure    340.6(a)""I%#.((3     OTHERAUTHORITIES      DefenderLosesMalpracticeCase,SanFranciscoDailyJournal(May27,2005)""J(#.B B W4   ?+ ` hp x 2%#?   -ܧ[+8ܧdXXd8  WhentheDefendantBecomesaPlaintiff.....#ܧ-j#  &   _Mܧ  PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY&LIABILITYSTANDARDS F FORCRIMINALAPPELLATEPRACTICE#ܧ _MW#  0    J.BradleyOConnell,StaffAttorney j  FirstDistrictAppellateProject j  Jan.2006 j  C INTRODUCTION  j    0  Ifthereisoneforumwhichislesshospitabletocriminaldefendantsthancriminal h  courtitself,itiscivilcourt.Defendantsfrustratedwiththecriminalappellateand h  writprocessoccasionallyattempttobypassthoseproceduresandseekredressfor h _assertedly_Ԁwrongfulconvictionsbypursuingcivilsuitsagainstvariousparticipantsin h thecriminaljusticesystem,includingtheirdefenseattorneys(bothtrialandappellate).  h  However,boththeU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourtshaveestablishedstandards l whicheffectivelyprecludeadefendantfromusingsuchasuit(whetherlabeledasa l  malpracticeor civilrightsaction)asavehicleforlitigatingthelegalityoftheir l convictions.Mostsignificantly,asuitagainstdefensecounselcannotproceeduntil l afterthedefendanthassucceededinobtainingpostconvictionreliefsettingasidehis l conviction.Consequently,veryfewofthesuitsfiledagainstappellatedefense l counselhaveanyrealprospectofproceedingbeyondthepleadingstage.l(#(#  I.0  STATEMALPRACTICESTANDARDS. l(#(# 0  Thefailuretoprovidecompetentrepresentationinacivilorcriminalcasemaybethe j  basisforcivilliabilityunderatheoryofprofessionalnegligence."(_Coscia_Ԁv. j! McKenna&_Cuneo_(2001)25Cal.4th1194,1199.)Thebasicliabilitystandards j" governingamalpracticeclaimagainstcriminaldefensecounselmirrorthoseinother j# professionalliabilitycontexts: Toprovealegalmalpracticecauseofaction,the j$ plaintiffmustshow:(1)adutybytheattorneytousesuchskill,prudenceand j%  diligenceasmembersofhisorherprofessioncommonlypossessandexercise;(2) j&!! breachofthatduty;(3)aproximatecausalconnectionbetweenthebreachandthe j'"" resultinginjury;and(4)% P %PU%% Q %Qs%actuallossordamageresultingfromtheattorney's j(## negligence.[Citations.](_Redante_Ԁv._Yockelson_(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th1351,1356.)j)$$(#(# 0  But,overthepastdecade,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasestablishedafurtherset j+&& ofprerequisitesformaintainingamalpracticeactionagainstcriminaldefensecounsel j,'' (trialorappellate):#j-(((#(#$ #Ї VCDFGJRSTU(:y3 "C3"  C3P(2:3  0    Necessityof actualinnocence.󀀀UnderWileyv.CountyofSanDiego(1998)19  XxXܧCal.4th#ܧXXx9)#Ԁ532,acriminaldefendantX Z#  1      ׀mustpleadandprovehis actualinnocenceofthe  offenseinordertopursueamalpracticeclaimagainstdefensecounsel.Adefendants  innocenceisan elementofthemalpracticeaction.AccordingtotheCalifornia  SupremeCourt(aswellasthoseofsomeotherstates),  permittingaconvicted  criminaltopursuealegalmalpracticeclaimwithoutrequiringproofofinnocence   wouldallowthecriminaltoprofitfromhisownfraud,ortotakeadvantageofhisown   wrong,ortofound[a]claimuponhisiniquity,ortoacquirepropertybyhisown   crime.[Citation.](Id.atp537.)TheCourtemphasizedthatthestandardfor   maintainingadamagesactionwasamoredemandingonethanforobtainingappellate   orwritreliefforineffectiveassistanceofcounsel: Thefactthat_nonnegligent_   counselcouldhavedonebettermaywarrant_postconviction_Ԁrelief,butitdoesnot   translateintocivildamages,whichareintendedtomaketheplaintiffwhole.(Id.at   p.539.)C3P(}(݌ (#(# Ќ  "C3"  C3t/2:3  0     _Postconviction_Ԁrelief.󀀀Althoughthestandardsforamalpracticeactionaredifferent  fromandconsiderablymoreonerousthanthosefor_postconviction_Ԁrelief,thatdoesnot  meanthatacivildamagessuitisentirelyindependentoftheordinary_postconviction_  process.Onthecontrary, adefendantmustactuallysucceedinsettingasidehis  conviction(byappeal,writ,orother_postconviction_Ԁremedy)beforeproceeding  onamalpracticesuit. 󀀀(_Coscia_Ԁv.McKenna&_Cuneo_Ԁ(2001)25XxXܧCal.4th#ܧXXx3#Ԁ1194.)In  _Coscia_,theSupremeCourtruledoutanythoughtofusingthemalpracticeactionitself  astheforumforlitigatingtheinvalidityoftheconviction.TheCourtcitedboth  considerationsof judicialeconomy(e.g.,avoiding_relitigation_Ԁofthesame  ineffectiveassistanceissues)and _protect[ion_]againstinconsistentverdicts(suchthe  inconsistencybetweenahabeasdenialandamalpracticeverdictagainstdefense  counsel).(Id.atp.1204.) Unlessapersonconvictedofacriminaloffenseis  successfulinobtaining_postconviction_Ԁrelief,thepoliciesreviewedinWileypreclude  recoveryinalegalmalpracticeaction.(Id.atp.1201.)(Note,however,that    _postconviction_Ԁreliefmaybeobtainedongroundsotherthanattorney ! ineffectiveness.(Id.atp.1205fn.4.))C3t//݌"(#(# Ќ  0  _Coscia_srequirementof exonerationby_postconviction_Ԁrelief(id.atp.1206, %!! emphasisadded)demandsmorethansimplysettingasidetheoriginalconviction: [A] &"" plaintiffmustobtain_postconviction_Ԁreliefintheformofafinaldispositionofthe  underlyingcriminalcase!forexample,byacquittalafterretrial,reversalonappeal  withdirectionstodismissthecharges,reversalfollowedbythePeoplesrefusalto  continuetheprosecution,oragrantofhabeascorpusrelief!asaprerequisiteto  provingactualinnocenceinamalpracticeactionagainstformercriminaldefense  counsel.(Id.atp.1205,emphasisadded.) (#(# "C3"  C3<2:3  0    Relationshipbetween_postconviction_Ԁreliefrequirementandstatuteoflimitations.   Bystatute,anattorneymalpracticeaction shallbecommencedwithinoneyearafter   theplaintiffdiscovers,orthroughtheuseofreasonablediligenceshouldhave   discovered,thefactsconstitutingthewrongfulactoromission,orfouryearsfromthe   dateofthewrongfulactoromission,whicheveroccursfirst.(CodeCiv.Proc.XxXܧ#ܧXXx>#   340.6(a),emphasisadded.)The_Coscia_Courtrecognizedthatitsrequirementthatthe   defendantfirstobtainpostconvictionreliefcouldposeaCatch22.Because years,   evendecades,mayelapsebeforethewrongfullyconvictedcriminaldefendantobtains  _postconviction_Ԁrelief,(_Coscia_,supra,25XxXܧCal.4th#ܧXXx@#Ԁatp.1207),thestatuteoflimitations  maywellrunbeforethedefendantcansatisfythatprerequisiteformaintainingasuit.  The_Coscia_Courtssolutionwasa twotrackapproachadoptedinsomeotherstates.  ЀAlthough_postconviction_Ԁreliefisaprerequisiteforgoingforwardonamalpractice  claim,itisnotapreconditiontofiling:C3<K<݌(#(# Ќ  8  [_T]he_Ԁplaintiffmustfileamalpracticeclaimwithintheoneyearorfouryear  limitationsperiodsetforthinCodeofCivilProceduresection340.6,  subdivision(a).Althoughsuchanactionissubjecttodemurrerorsummary  judgmentwhileaplaintiffsconvictionremainsintact,thecourtshouldstay  themalpracticeactionduringtheperiodinwhichsuchaplaintifftimelyand  diligentlypursues_postconviction_Ԁremedies....Bythismeans,courtscan  ensurethattheplaintiffsclaimwillnotbebarredprematurelybythestatute  oflimitations.(_Coscia_,supra,atpp.12101211,emphasisadded.)    "C3"  C3 G2:3  0    Applicabilitytoclaimsagainstappellatedefensecounsel.󀀀AlthoughWileyand " _Coscia_involvedmalpracticeclaimsagainstdefensetrialcounsel,asubsequentFourth # Districtopinionhasconfirmedthatthedualrequirementsoffirstobtaining $  _postconviction_Ԁreliefandshowing actualinnocenceapplyequallytoclaimsagainst %!! appellatecounsel.(_Redante_Ԁv._Yockelson_(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th1351.)The &"" _Redante_opinionalsoaddressedthetypesofclaimswhichpotentiallycouldbe '## cognizableagainstappellatecounsel.Notsurprisingly,itrepeatedtheprinciplethat ($$ theultimateselectionofissuesisuptoappellatecounselsprofessionaljudgment,not )%% theclients.Counsel hadnodutytoargueeveryissue_Redante_Ԁwantedtoraise,but *&& ratherwasentitledtoassesswhichissueswerepotentiallymeritorious.(Id.atp. +'' 1357.)C3 G:G݌(#(# Ќ  0  Beyondthat,however,the_Redante_courttookastrikinglynarrowviewofappointed  appellatecounselsresponsibilities.Inparticular,itheldthat ordinarilyadefendant  cannotsueappointedappellatecounselforhisfailuretopursuehabeasremedies .  Itnotedthatthereis noconstitutionalrighttocounselinhabeascorpusproceedings,   and,consequently,norighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.[Citations.](Ibid.)   The_Redante_courtviewedtheresponsibilitiesofappointedappellatecounselin   Californiaassimilarlycircumscribed: [_I]n_Ԁnoncapitalappeals,appointedcounselhas   noobligationtoinvestigatepossiblebasesforcollateralattackonajudgmentandno    dutytofileorprosecuteanextraordinarywritbelievedtobedesirableorappropriate   bythedefendant.(InreClark(1993)5XxXܧCal.4th#ܧXXxuQ#Ԁ780,783fn.20[];Inre_Golia_(1971)   16XxXܧ_Cal.App_.3d#ܧXXx$R#Ԁ775,786[].)(_Redante_,supra,atp.1356,emphasisadded.)Though   theClarkfootnotedoescontainasimilarlylimiteddescriptionofnoncapitalappellate   counselsduties,inpracticeappointedappellateattorneysdoofteninvestigateandfile  habeasclaims,andthatworkisconsideredwithinthescopeoftheappellate  appointmentinmostdistricts(includingintheFourthDistrict).(#(# 0  Presumably,the_Redante_rationalewouldnotapplyinthoseunusualsituationsin  whichanappellatecourtdoesappointcounselforthespecificpurposeoflitigatinga  writpetition,suchaswhereanappellatecourtappointscounselafterissuingan_OSC_  onaninmatespro.per.habeaspetition(#(# "C3"  C3V2:3  0    Implicationsforclaimsagainstappellatecounsel.Takentogether,theholdingsin  suchcasesasWiley,_Coscia_,and_Redante_meanthatveryfewinmatesuitsagainst  appellatedefensecounselwillprogressveryfarbeyondtheinitialpleadingstage.  Buttheywontnecessarilybedismissedoutright.Mostsuchsuitswillbestayed,  pursuantto_Coscia_,whiletheinmatecontinuestopursuehabeasorother  _postconviction_Ԁremedies.C3VV݌ (#(# Ќ  0  Ofcourse,aninmatewhodoessucceedinobtaining_postconviction_Ԁreliefmaygo " forwardwithasuitagainstformertrialcounsel,appellatecounsel,orboth.Indeed, # oneinmaterecentlyprevailedonamalpracticeclaimagainstadeputypublicdefender $  inLosAngeles.Theessenceofthecasewasthattheattorneyhadntadequately %!! investigatedorobtainedevidencetosupporttheclientsclaimthatroguepolice &"" officershadshothimandframedhimforassaultbyplantingaweapononhim.(The '## malpracticecaseinvolvedsomeofthesameofficersimplicatedinLosAngeles ($$ notoriousRampartsscandal.Buttheunderlyingcriminalcasehadoccurred )%% approximately2yearsbeforetheRampartsstorybroke.)(See DefenderLoses *&& MalpracticeCase,SanFranciscoDailyJournal(May27,2005),p.3{discussing +'' _Ovando_Ԁv._Toister_,BC237276}.)(#(# 0  Butthegroundsonwhichaclientcouldsuccessfullysueanappellatedefenderare  muchmorelimited,inlightof_Redante_Ԁv._Yockelson_.Aclaimliketheonein_Ovando_  wouldnotlieagainstappellatecounsel,because,under_Redante_,appointedappellate  counselcannotbeheldliableforfailuretoinvestigatepossiblewritissues.   Consequently,theonlytypesofclaimscognizableagainstappellatecounselwouldbe   thoseinvolvingafailuretopursueameritoriousissueondirectappeal. (#(# "C3"  C3a2:3  0    Exceptions.Thevariouslimitationsdiscussedhere!suchasthenecessityof   obtaining_postconviction_Ԁreliefandshowingactualinnocence!applyonlyto   malpracticeactionsagainstappointedappellateattorneys.Theseopinionsdonotrule   outtheavailabilityofothertypesofsuitsarisingfromtherelationshipbetweena   criminaldefenseclientandhisretainedappellateor_postconviction_Ԁcounsel.For   example,though_postconviction_Ԁreliefandashowingofactualinnocencewouldstill  berequiredtopursuemalpracticedamages(againsteitherretainedorappointed  counsel),aclientmightstillpursuecontractualclaimsagainsthisformerretained  counsel!suchasfor_overbilling_Ԁorforfailingtoperformaspecificservice(e.g.,  filingatimelywritpetition)specifiedinthecontract.(E.g.,Bird,_Marella_,Boxer&  _Woolpert_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(2003)106XxXܧ_Cal.App_.4th#ܧXXxzg#Ԁ419{allowingsuitforbreachof  contract,breachoffiduciaryduty,fraud,and_overbilling_Ԁtoproceed,withoutnecessity  ofshowingactualinnocenceor_postconviction_Ԁexoneration}.)C3ab݌(#(# Ќ  II.0  FEDERALCIVILRIGHTSSUITS. (#(# 0  Somedefendantshaveattemptedtorecasttheircomplaintsagainstdefensecounsel  as civilrightsactions,under42U.S.C.XxXܧ#ܧXXx=j#Ԁ1983,ratherthanastraditionalstate  malpracticesuits.Butsuchinmatesuitsfaceevengreaterobstaclesthanmalpractice  actions.And,inthecaseofdamagesclaimsthatappointeddefensecounselinfringed   adefendantscivilrightsbyrenderingineffectiveassistance,thoseobstaclesappear ! insurmountable,andsuchsuitsshouldbesubjecttopromptdismissal."(#(# "C3"  C3hl2:3  0    No stateactionforXxXܧ#ܧXXxl#1983purposes.42U.S.C.XxXܧ#ܧXXxdm#Ԁ1983isthebasicReconstruction $  erastatuteunderwhichmostprivatecivilrightssuitsareprosecuted.Section1983 % ! authorizescivilsuitsfordamagesand/orequitablerelieffordeprivationsof &!" constitutionalorothercivilrights undercolorofstatelaw.Afewdefendants,of '"# course,viewtheirappointedattorneysassimplyadditionalparticipantsinahostile (#$ criminaljusticesystem.Somedefendantshaveattemptedtosuedefensecounsel, )$% allegingthattheirerrorsormisconductresultedintheirwrongfulconvictions(or *%& wrongful_affirmances_Ԁofconvictions)anddeprivedthemoftheirconstitutionalrights. +&' Ѐ(Inadditiontotrialand/orappellatedefensecounsel,suchputativecivilrightssuits  commonlynameprosecutors,judges,policeorsheriffsofficers,andotheragencies  orofficialsasadditionaldefendants.)C3hll݌(#(# Ќ  0  Whateverrightsdefendantsmayhavetosuestateorlocalofficialsforwrongful  convictionsinegregiouscases,theU.S.SupremeCourthasunequivocallyheldthat    appointeddefensecounselareimmunefromsuitunderXxXܧ#ܧXXx7s#Ԁ1983becausethereis   no stateaction. (PolkCountyv.Dobson(1981)454U.S.312.)TheCourt   reasonedthat,whenheorsheisrepresentingaclientagainsttheprosecutionina   lawyerstraditionaladversarialrole,adeputypublicdefenderorotherappointed    attorneyisnota stateactorwithintheintentofXxXܧ#ܧXXx+u#Ԁ1983,eventhoughtheattorneys   rolemayderivefromacourtappointment.Thereisapossibleexceptionforsuits   againstasupervisingpublicdefenderforactionsinanadministrative,ratherthana   representationcapacity.(Cf.Mirandav.ClarkCounty,Nevada(9thCir.2003)319   F.3d465.)Butthatpossiblewrinkleshouldposenoconcernsforpanelattorneys.  AppointedpanelattorneyscomesquarelywithintheholdingofPolkCounty,andany  putativeXxXܧ#ܧXXxw#Ԁ1983suitagainstapanelattorneyshouldbesubjecttodismissalonthe  pleadings.(#(# "C3"  C3x2:3  0    AdditionalobstaclestouseofXxXܧ#ܧXXx4y#1983tochallengeconvictions.󀀀Theotherkindsof  partiestypicallynamedincivilrightssuitsallegingwrongfulconvictions(e.g.,police  andprosecutors)are stateactorsforXxXܧ#ܧXXxkz#Ԁ1983purposes.ButtheSupremeCourthas  madeclearthatacivilrightssuitisnotanappropriatevehicleforchallengingthe  constitutionalityofaconviction.Afederalcivilrightssuitisnosubstitutefora  habeascorpuspetition,andadefendantcannotavoidthemanyproceduresobstacles  tohabeasrelief(exhaustion,proceduraldefault,etc.)byfilingaXxXܧ#ܧXXxs|#Ԁ1983actioninstead.  Afederalhabeaspetitionistheexclusivefederalremedyforsettingasidean  unconstitutionalstateconviction. AdefendantcannotuseXxXܧ#ܧXXx}#Ԁ1983toseekequitable  ordeclaratoryreliefdirectedtohisorherstatecriminalcase .(_Preiser_Ԁv.   Rodriguez(1973)411U.S.475.)C3xx݌! (#(# Ќ  0  Normayadefendantattempttolitigatethelegalityofhisconvictionthroughasuit #  fordamagesagainststateofficials.Adefendant mustfirstobtainstateorfederal $  postconvictionreliefoverturningtheconviction beforeproceedingwithasuitfor %!! damages. [_I]n_Ԁordertorecoverdamagesforallegedlyunconstitutionalconviction &"" orimprisonment,orsomeotherharmcausedbyactionswhoseunlawfulnesswould '## renderaconvictionorsentenceinvalid[fn.],aXxXܧ#ܧXXxP#Ԁ1983plaintiffmustprovethatthe ($$ convictionhasbeenreversedondirectappeal,expungedbyexecutiveorder,declared )%% invalidbyastatetribunal...,orcalledintoquestionbyafederalcourtsissuanceof *&& writofhabeascorpus.(Heckv.Humphrey(1984)512_U.S_Ԁ477,486487.)(This +'' requirement,ofcourse,isverysimilartotheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsrule(adopted  twodecadeslater)requiringadefendanttoobtain_postconviction_Ԁreliefbefore  proceedingwithastatemalpracticesuit.(_Coscia_Ԁv.McKenna&_Cuneo_Ԁ(2001)25  XxXܧCal.4th#ܧXXxӄ#Ԁ1194.)(#(# 0  (Notethatthelimitationsofsuchcasesas_Preiser_andHeckapplyonlytoXxXܧ#ܧXXxDž#Ԁ1983   actionschallengingtheconstitutionalityoftheconvictionitself,nottosuitsagainst   police,jailorprisonofficials,orothersinthecriminaljusticesystemallegingother   kindsofconstitutionalviolations.Thus,theserulesdonotbarXxXܧ#ܧXXxD#Ԁ1983suitsalleging   policebrutalityorunconstitutionaljailorprisonconditions,becausethoseclaimsare   independentofthelegalityoftheconviction.) (#(#  III.0  DONTWORRY.YOURECOVERED.  (#(# 0  Underthesubstantivestandardsoutlinedabove,panelattorneyshavenothing   whatevertofearfromaputativecivilrightssuitandverylittletofearfromastate  malpracticesuit!atleastintermsofanyseriousriskofbeingheldliablefor  damages.Nonetheless,suchsuitsareanuisance,sincetheymayrequirethefiling  ofdemurrers,motionstodismiss,motionsforsummaryjudgment,orotherresponsive  pleadings.However,panelattorneysshouldresteasy,sincethereisnoneedtomaster  civilprocedure,makeappearances,ordevoteprecioustimetorespondingtosuch  suits. Panelattorneysareexpresslycoveredby_FDAP_sprofessionalliability  policyforanysuitsbydefendantclientsarisingoutoftheirrepresentationon  courtappointedappeals. (#(# "C3"  C3Ռ2:3  0    Scopeofcoverage.Thepolicycoverssuitsagainstpanelattorneysfortheiractions  withinthescopeoftheirappointmentsthrough_FDAP_Ԁ!i.e.,appellateappointments  bytheCaliforniaCourtofAppealortheCaliforniaSupremeCourt!includingany  claimsregardinghabeasrepresentation(orfailuretofileahabeaspetition)duringand   aspartofthatappointment.(However,asnotedearlier,asasubstantivematter, ! _Redante_Ԁv._Yockelson_(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th1351,takesanarrowviewofcounsels " responsibilitiesandappearstobaranyliabilityforanappointedappellateattorneys # failuretofileahabeaspetition.)Thecoverageincludesanydamagesorsettlement $  and,equallyimportant,costsofdefense.C3Ռ݌% !(#(# Ќ  0  Thepolicywouldlikelynotextendtoanyfurtheractionsonaformerclientsbehalf '"# outsidethescopeoftheappellateappointment.Forexample,iftheappellatecourt (#$ issuedan_OSC_Ԁonahabeaspetitionandcounselobtainedasuperiorcourtappointment )$% tocontinuerepresentingtheclientfortheevidentiaryhearingorotherproceedings, *%& asuitarisingoutofthatsuperiorcourtrepresentationwouldlikelybedeemedoutside +&' thecoverageof_FDAP_spolicy,becausethatrepresentationwouldnothavebeen  withinthescopeoftheappellateappointmentthrough_FDAP_.Thesamegoesforany  post_affirmance_Ԁrepresentation(eitherbyappointmentoronaprobonobasis)in  federalhabeasproceedings.(#(# "C3 "  C32:3  0    Counselsdutiesifthreatenedwithsuit.󀀀Intheeventthatacurrentorformer   appellatecounselfilessuitagainstyouorthreatenstosueyou, youshouldnotify   _FDAP_Ԁimmediately, and_FDAP_Ԁinturnwillreportthemattertotheinsurer.Donot   waituntilyouareformallyservedwithalawsuit.Ifsomeonemailsyouwhatappears   tobeastateorfederalsuit,thatisthetimetocontact_FDAP_,regardlessofwhetheror    notyoubelievethatthemailingqualifiesas serviceofthecomplaint.Similarly,   ifaclient,byletterorinaphoneconversation,clearlystatesthathehasorisabout   tosueyou,thattooshouldbereportedto_FDAP_.(However,aclientsassertionthat   heisgoingtowritetotheCourtofAppeal,fileawritallegingyourineffective   assistance,orsubmitacomplainttotheStateBardoesnotrequirenoticetotheinsurer  (becausethoseactionwouldnotimplicatetheprofessionalliabilitypolicy).  (Nonetheless,dependingonthecircumstances,apanelattorneymaystillwantto  contactthe_FDAP_Ԁbuddytodiscussthematter.)C3݌(#(# Ќ  0  When_FDAP_Ԁnotifiestheinsurerofasuit(orathreatofsuit),theinsurerscounsel  determineswhetherthematterrequiresanyimmediateaction.Ifthereisnoindication  thatacomplainthasactuallybeenfiled,theinsurerwillgenerallydefertakingany  action.However,ifacomplainthasbeenfiled(evenifnotnecessarilyserved  properly),theinsurerwillgenerallyreferthecasetolocalinsurancedefensecounsel.  Fromthatpoint,thelocalcounselwillrepresentyou,andyouwilldealdirectlywith  thatfirm.Ofcourse,itisyourresponsibilitytocooperatefullywiththeinsurance  defensecounsel,includingdiggingoutcopiesofbriefs,correspondence,andother  informationrelevanttothecase.