Background
Minor Perez-Chach sought to compel his former trial counsel to provide his case file so that he could pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion on the ground that it lacked authority to grant it.
Perez-Chach appealed pro se. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to compel for abuse of discretion.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it lacked authority to grant Perez-Chach’s motion. Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 19-301.16(d) requires an attorney, upon termination of representation, to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests, including surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled.
The court did not itself determine the precise contents that counsel must produce or direct immediate production of the entire file. It vacated the denial and remanded with instructions for the district court to consider the motion and, if necessary to resolve it, order former trial counsel to respond.
Key Takeaways
- A district court has authority to consider a former criminal defendant’s motion seeking the return of a case file from trial counsel.
- Former counsel should return the case file to the extent required by Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 19-301.16(d).
- The remand requires further consideration of the motion, not automatic production of every item in counsel’s possession.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a federal court may address a request for files needed to prepare a collateral challenge under § 2255 and should not reject such a request based on a perceived lack of authority.
Although unpublished and nonprecedential, the opinion provides practical guidance for post-conviction litigants and former defense counsel concerning access to client files after representation ends.