Marriage of Montazer CA4/3
It is ordered that the opinion filed on December 27, 2017 be modified as follows:
On page 7, the last full paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
“Husband maintains his lawyers, who were criminal, not family law attorneys, were ineffective in several instances, including advising him to plead no contest to the OSC re contempt, failing to quash the subpoena duces tecum in connection with the judgment debtor examination. To the extent these claims relate to civil matters, the argument fails. We may not reverse a civil judgment based on alleged incompetency of counsel. (Chevalier v. Dubin (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 975, 979-980.)
To the extent the contempt action was a criminal proceeding, to prevail on this claim husband must show performance fell below prevailing professional standards and was prejudicial. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694.) Husband has failed to show either. As noted several times, without the reporter’s transcript
Comments on Marriage of Montazer CA4/3