The US Supreme Court doesn't necessarily care if your lawyer is unethical

A case from Michigan about what effective representation of counsel means was heard at the US Supreme Court. It turns out, if your lawyer does unethical things doesn't mean they were ineffective as your legal representative.

Article here. (State Bar of Michigan blog)

and here.(from the Atlantic)

.... from the Atlantic article :

"This is what the right to counsel has come to in America. Your lawyer may have violated ethical rules; he may have failed to timely consult with other attorneys; he may have not adequately investigated your case; he may have given you bad advice that leads you to withdraw a guilty plea. And yet the legal standards imposed by the Supreme Court declare that you still aren't entitled to any meaningful relief by the courts. In law school, they call this "a right without a remedy." In real life, it's called injustice."