Hartzler v. Tootle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that prohibiting withdrawal preserves the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and allows the appellate court to directly review merits of case
• explaining that prohibiting withdrawal preserves the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and allows the appellate court to directly review merits of case
• acknowledging that while prohibiting Anders withdrawals could result in some “underdeveloped briefs’’ and “poorly substantiated arguments,’’ it has ensured “review by the judiciary, not by overworked and underpaid public defenders’’
• requiring appointed attorney to proceed with frivolous appeal and making an exception to state's analog to Colo. RPC 8.1
• requiring appointed attorney to proceed with frivolous appeal and making an exception to state's analog to Colo. RPC 3.1
• “[T]he Anders approach puts counsel at odds with the client, forcing counsel into the awkward position of arguing against the client before the reviewing court, and leading the defendant to conclude that his or her interests have been compromised.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).