Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>While a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to assistance from counsel, you can't always force a client to follow legal advice, even good advice. Take Raymon Walters, who was preparing for trial on charges being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1). Mr. Walters had been convicted on various drug charges previously, so his attorney decided to stipulate that his client knew he was a felon (and limit the government's opportunity to present evidence on this fact to the jury). Mr. Waters objected to admitting these easily proven facts so the government objected to the stipulation, arguing counsel could not admit to an element of the crime over the client's objection.  The court agreed, allowing prosecutors to introduce evidence of Mr. Walters prior drug convictions and prison records. </p><p>On appeal, the Third Circuit ruled that while counsel can make strategic decisions alone, defense objectives are left to the client and admitting guilt is an objective, not a strategy.  It therefore concluded that because the government must prove each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has the right to insist that the government carry its burden for each element and counsel cannot confess to one of them without the client's consent. (The court acknowledged a limited exception that allows counsel to admit jurisdictional facts - such as whether a financial institution is federally insured - without client approval, but that exception did not apply to Mr. Walters.) Perhaps it would not have mattered to the outcome of Mr. Walters case but had the right not to follow his lawyer's good advice.  United States v. Walters, No. 22-1812 (3rd Cir. Sept. 4, 2025).</p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102l47h'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link"><p>[C]ourts sought to strike a harmonious balance between the accused’s autonomy over his defense and counsel’s ability to effectively achieve the accused’s desired outcome. To achieve this balance, the Supreme 
Court delegated strategic decisions to lawyers. McCoy v. Louuisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422 (2018). And it reserved defense objectives for the accused.  Id. at 417</p><cite><a href="https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/2368405?nl_pk=b3fae381-63b0-436f-a150-e2cf3386da48&#038;utm_content=2025-09-06&#038;read_more=1&#038;nlsidx=0&#038;nlaidx=0" aria-label="www.law360.com/..." title="https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/2368405?nl_pk=b3fae381-63b0-436f-a150-e2cf3386da48&amp;utm_content=2025-09-06&amp;read_more=1&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=0" target="_blank">www.law360.com/...</a></cite></blockquote><div class="passle-featured-image passle-featured-image-position-bottom"><img src="https://images.passle.net/fit-in/400x400/filters:crop(0,0,2308,1293)/Passle/5f6edd8e8cb62a0bec3e5fd2/SearchServiceImages/2025-09-08-20-50-53-407-68bf41ad8d52a4756c33e5a7.jpg" alt="Featured Image" /></div>

A Client Has the Right to Reject Trial Counsel’s Good Advice.

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon