Abstract
The United States Supreme Court in Ferri v. Ackerman reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and held that an attorney appointed by a federal judge to represent an indigent defendant in a federal criminal trial is not, as a matter of federal law, entitled to absolute immunity in a state malpractice suit brought against him by his former client. In a unanimous opinion, the Court decided that the function of appointed counsel is more closely analogous to that of private retained counsel, who enjoy no immunity from malpractice prosecution than to that of judges and prosecutors who have traditionally been accorded immunity at common law.
Recommended Citation
Branda, Sandra J.
(1980)
"Criminal Justice Act of 1964; State Malpractice Suit Against Appointed Counsel; Ferri v. Ackerman,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 13:
Iss.
4, Article 10.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol13/iss4/10