118 Yale L.J. 272 (2008).

In Anders v. California, the Supreme Court crafted a procedure to prevent appointed attorneys from abandoning their clients after trial. The Court provided that if counsel wishes to withdraw from a “frivolous” case, he or she first must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might support an appeal. Then, before permitting withdrawal, the appellate court examines the brief and the proceedings below to determine whether counsel’s assessment was proper. Since deciding Anders in 1967, the Supreme Court has not determined whether this procedure also applies to appeals from civil commitment. Several recent state court decisions, however, have rejected this possibility. This Note criticizes these decisions on both doctrinal and policy grounds. First, a review of relevant case law suggests that Anders should be viewed as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment rather than from the Sixth Amendment, furnishing a compelling constitutional basis for requiring Anders in both criminal and civil-commitment appeals. Moreover, Anders may have unique utility in furthering the norms of “therapeutic jurisprudence” by alleviating the role dilemma often manifested by civil-commitment attorneys.