Whether a criminal defense lawyer should be held responsible for his actions and inactions even if his client is guilty of a lesser offense

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : This case concerns a charge of theft (shoplifting) against the Petitioner and the failures of his criminal defense attorney that he hired. The Petitioner filed a suit against the Respondent for malpractice and breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was dismissed by the trial court. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Both courts based their decisions on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Gibson v. Trant, 58 S.W.3d 103 (Tenn. 2001), which requires that a Plaintiff show that he has won postconviction relief and has been exonerated in order to prevail against his attorney, contrary to many other states. 1, Whether a criminal defense lawyer should be held responsible for his actions and inactions even if his client is guilty of a lesser offense. 2. Whether all states should have the same requirements in order for a plaintiff to successfully sue their criminal defense attorney for their errors and omissions. 3. Whether a Plaintiffs entire case should be dismissed, even when part of his case does not involve post-conviction relief.