Agreed Matt, deportation is one of the few ancillary punishments that a "competent attorney" should be able to give his deportable client correct legal advice about.  BUT, the minimum an attorney should be able to advise about, given the state of the immigration laws in this country, is a guilty plea to a criminal offense is a certain deportation order. 

Unfortunately, the plethora of SCOTUS cases that address the 6th Amendment right to counsel leave a lot to be desired on compentency definitions for attorneys. The competency requirements, under SCOTUS rules and definitions, requires little more than a breathing body, and that body does NOT have to be awake during the trial.

It's easy to harsh on the bottom of the attorneys who try to slog along under these conditions, but the remedy is clear if we have to do it (i.e. pay to do it).  Level the playing field.   Mandate public defenders or Legal Aid attorneys get paid the same as the prosecutors or the prevailing local hourly rate for private criminal defenders for non-indigent defendants.

Perhaps incentivize defenders by paying a success fee bonus if a case which goes to trial and there is no conviction results in a cash bonus (like many private sector litigants).  Subject their vouchers for third-party quality control and establish guidelines for similar cases so the taxpayers are protected and the bills aren't padded.  Dismiss defenders who game the system or who aren't deemed effective and zealous by their clients.

Adopt some of these reforms, level the playing field (as it should be, that's called "justice" and a "fair trial") and you won't see harried attorneys meeting their clients in jail or the court hallway for the first time meeting 15 minutes before the hearing while juggling a dozen other manila file folders.

Unfortunately Jack, I agree with you. But, the governments, federal, state and local do not have the necessary money to provide "Public Defenders" who are not juggling a dozen other manila file folders.  The Federal PD's office in Chicago is a perfect example, they juggle a hundred or so clients and the court's are therefore required to appoint outside counsel, who, recieving a 1,500.00 cap on defending a case, be it murder or deportation proceedings, do not have the private money to provide a competant defense and who are more concerned with defending their paying clients at 250.00 an hour (ct time) than formulating a complete defense for some poor indigent, who in some cases, should not be convicted...or as in this case, deported, or in the following: http://immigration.change.org/actions/view/grant_justice_and_stop_the_deportation_of_julio_maldonado_and_denis_calderon

I believe it is their ethical responsibility to provide all clients the same competant defense,They know this going into law when they take their oath, regardless of pay,networking with contacts on previous cases or a nationwide data base of information & a donation of services required for those who meet a indigent criteria can help give the same equal treatment, it is the attorneys responsibility to make it happen, they should do the extra work, we all have to pay our dues

Yah, well say what you will about "they took the job, etc.", but around here, they pay less than $40K/yr for public defenders/legal aid, and still work them to death with a caseload they cannot control (unless they revolt and go to court when they are overwhelmed beyond breaking).  

I guess it's easy for others to say that "volunteers" and low-paid people doing "pro bono" should suck it up and do the same job as the better paid people on the other side, but I'm not so heartless.  You get what you pay for.  Sometimes volunteers get invaluable experience and training from their "on the job training", so I guess it works for them.  Having lots of experience, it doesn't work at me at all.  

I'm willing to do "semi-pro" bono and charge no more per hour than my plumber or car mechanic wants from me ($80/hr), not the $200+/hr I used to get in private practice. But pay people a living wage for whatever they do, and that includes public employees like teachers and lawyers.

I don't get why prosecutors and public defenders aren't on the exact same pay scale anyway (not that young prosecutors don't make small salaries when they are assistants just starting out).  Why do we expect public defenders themselves to subsidize this social (constitutionally required) function?

And if we're talking the "pro bono" as done traditionally by bigname law firms as associate training and goodwill marketing, ask yourself how sustainable these programs are in recessionary times when these firms are laying off staff and focusing more on the bottom line of milking their corporate and banking clients.

There is no free lunch, especially when you are looking for someone else to provide it gratis.