Summary of Argument

The question before this Court is whether Austin M's constitutional right to counsel in a delinquency proceeding has been breached where his lawyer served as both counsel and Guardian ad Litem (GAL). In this dual role, the lawyer was tasked with defending Austin M. against allegations of delinquency, while simultaneously tasked with advising the court as to Austin’s best interests and how they bore on the outcome of the delinquency proceeding. Amici submit that these two assigned roles are incompatible, creating a conflict of interest per se which requires reversal of the adjudication below.

Austin M's right to counsel is not at issue. Nearly 45 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that children charged with delinquency have a fundamental constitutional right to counsel under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967). Gault followed on the heels of the Supreme Court's decision four years earlier in Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Court held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments. Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). In Gideon, the Court wrote:

The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours... "The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."

Gideon, 372 U.S. at 344-45 (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (1932)). The prominence of counsel in our hierarchy of due process was underscored in Gault, where the Court extended the right to counsel to children charged with delinquency in juvenile court:

Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.... There is no material difference in this respect between adult and juvenile proceedings of the sort here involved... The juvenile needs the assistance of counsel to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it. The child "requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.

387 U.S at 28-29 (footnotes omitted).

The precise question before this Court is what this settled right to counsel in juvenile court means: Do children have the same right to a zealous, conflict-free advocate as an adult, with a singular duty to defend them against the state and to hold the state to its heavy burden under our constitutional framework? Does Austin M. have the right not only to the guiding of hand of counsel to help him navigate the complex proceedings and adverse consequences at issue in juvenile court, but a right to counsel who will give voice to his own expressed interests and desires without regard to the views of the state, the judge, other stakeholders or even his own lawyer as to what is 'best' for him?

In 1963, Attorney Abe Fortas - who four years later would author the Supreme Court's Gault decision after his appointment to the United States Supreme Court -- asked the Court a simple question on behalf of his client, Clarence Earl Gideon:

"I believe this case dramatically illustrates that you cannot have a fair trial without counsel. Under our adversary system of justice, how can our civilized nation pretend that there is a fair trial without the counsel for the prosecution doing all he can within the limits of decency, and the counsel for the defense doing his best within the same limits, and from that clash will emerge the truth?"

Anthony Lewis, Gideon's Trumpet 171 (1964).

The clash of adversaries remains the tested method for arriving at the truth under the dictates of our Constitution. Austin M. has the right to a lawyer who will do "all he can within the limits of decency" to ensure his own voice is heard amid that clash.

Summary of Argument

The question presented is whether a juvenile defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when his attorney serves as both his legal representative and Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The amici argue that these roles are inherently incompatible, creating a per se conflict of interest that necessitates reversal of the lower court's adjudication.

The United States Supreme Court has unequivocally established that juveniles charged with delinquency possess a fundamental constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This right stems from the Court's prior decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which recognized a similar right for criminal defendants under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Gideon, the Court emphasized the crucial role of counsel in ensuring a fair trial, stating that even intelligent individuals lack the legal knowledge to adequately defend themselves against criminal charges. The Court subsequently extended this right to juvenile proceedings in Gault, acknowledging the unique vulnerabilities of children facing delinquency charges and their need for legal assistance to navigate complex legal processes and advocate for their interests. In re Gault.

The present case raises a pivotal question: does the right to counsel in juvenile court encompass a right to zealous, conflict-free representation, with a singular duty to defend the child against the state and ensure the state adheres to its constitutional obligations? In other words, does a juvenile defendant have a right not only to legal guidance but also to an advocate who will champion their expressed interests and desires, even if those interests conflict with the perspectives of the state, the judge, other stakeholders, or even the attorney's own assessment of the child's best interests?

The adversarial system of justice, championed in Gideon, relies on the clash of competing voices to uncover the truth. Attorney Abe Fortas, who later wrote the Gault decision, aptly articulated this principle: "Under our adversary system of justice, how can our civilized nation pretend that there is a fair trial without the counsel for the prosecution doing all he can within the limits of decency, and the counsel for the defense doing his best within the same limits, and from that clash will emerge the truth?" Anthony Lewis, Gideon's Trumpet 171 (1964). This inherent conflict ensures that each party's perspective is fully and forcefully presented, fostering a more accurate and just outcome.

The amici contend that Austin M. deserves a lawyer who will rigorously advocate for his interests, "doing all he can within the limits of decency" to ensure his voice is heard amidst the adversarial process, promoting a fair and accurate outcome.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a juvenile, Austin M, who was represented by a lawyer serving as both his attorney and Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The lawyer, in this dual role, was tasked with defending Austin against delinquency charges while simultaneously advising the court on Austin's best interests. This court is tasked with determining whether this dual role violates Austin's constitutional right to counsel, and whether such a role represents a conflict of interest that requires reversal of the adjudication.

The United States Supreme Court has established that children facing delinquency charges have a fundamental right to counsel under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was established after the Court held that criminal defendants also have a constitutional right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The importance of having counsel in criminal proceedings was emphasized in Gideon, where the court stated that without counsel, a defendant faces the danger of conviction even when innocent, as they lack the necessary legal knowledge and understanding to defend themselves.

The Court extended this right to counsel to juvenile proceedings in Gault, recognizing that children require legal assistance to navigate complex legal procedures and ensure fairness in court proceedings. The court acknowledged that a juvenile requires counsel to understand the legal issues, investigate the facts, ensure the process is conducted fairly, and develop and present a defense.

This case raises the question of whether children in juvenile proceedings have the same right to a zealous and conflict-free advocate as adults. Specifically, the court must determine whether Austin has the right to counsel who will exclusively advocate for his own interests without considering the views of the state, the judge, or other stakeholders, including the lawyer's own opinion of what is "best" for him.

Attorney Abe Fortas, who later authored the Supreme Court's Gault decision, argued that a fair trial necessitates a clash of adversaries, where both the prosecution and the defense present their arguments within ethical boundaries, allowing for the truth to emerge from this adversarial process. Austin has the right to a lawyer who will advocate forcefully within the bounds of ethical practice, ensuring his voice is heard and considered in this adversarial process.

Summary of Argument

The court is deciding if Austin M.'s right to legal representation was violated during his delinquency proceedings. His lawyer acted as both his defense attorney and as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL). This means the lawyer had to defend Austin against accusations while also advising the court about Austin's best interests. The argument is that these two roles are conflicting and create a bias that requires the original decision to be overturned.

Austin M. has a fundamental right to legal representation under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, as stated in the 1967 Supreme Court case In re Gault. This right is based on the idea that everyone has a right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright established this right for adults in 1963, stating that without legal counsel, individuals may not understand the legal process and could be unfairly convicted. The court emphasized the importance of legal representation in the Gault case, extending this right to children in delinquency proceedings.

The core question is whether children have the same right to a dedicated, unbiased lawyer as adults, one who solely focuses on defending them and ensuring their rights are protected. Should Austin M. have the right to a lawyer who represents his interests, even if they differ from what others, including the court, believe is in his best interests?

The case of Gideon v. Wainwright highlights the clash between the prosecution and defense as essential for a fair trial. A lawyer's role is to advocate for their client's interests. Austin M. has the right to a lawyer who will fiercely advocate for him, ensuring his voice is heard in this clash.

Summary of Argument

This case is about a young person named Austin M. and his rights in a court case. The question is whether Austin's right to a lawyer was taken away because his lawyer was also trying to help the court decide what was best for him.

The court says that children facing court cases have the right to a lawyer to help them, just like adults. This is because children don't know all the rules of the court, and they need a lawyer to help them understand what's happening.

In this case, Austin's lawyer was in two roles. He was supposed to help Austin defend himself, but also help the court decide what was best for Austin. This is a problem because it's like asking someone to be on both sides of a game at the same time.

The court needs to decide if Austin has the right to a lawyer who only helps him and who makes sure his voice is heard, even if it's different from what the court, or other people, think is best for him.

Long ago, a lawyer said that you can't have a fair trial without a lawyer to help you. This is because the lawyer fights for you, and the other side fights for their side, and from that fight, the truth comes out.

Austin has the right to a lawyer who will fight for him and make sure his voice is heard, even if it's different from what other people think is best for him.