They do on paper, at least. A quick search of Arizona law turned up this:
"Ineffective assistance of counsel has two components: a party must show both that counsel's representation fell below prevailing professional norms and that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
I don't know the ins and outs of that state's precedent, but it looks like it is conceived of, under law.
"Ineffective assistance of counsel has two components: a party must show both that counsel's representation fell below prevailing professional norms and that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
I don't know the ins and outs of that state's precedent, but it looks like it is conceived of, under law.