Also known as: reasonable competence · standard of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of performance requiring that an actor's conduct meet the level of skill and care that a competent person in the same role would exercise under the circumstances. The standard is objective and measured against what a person in the actor's position should know or perceive.
Roberto Reyes, a dispatcher at Frontier Cargo, received a report that a driver was exhausted after a double shift and that icy conditions were forecast. Reyes nevertheless ordered the driver to complete the overnight route to avoid overtime costs. When the bus later crashed and killed a passenger, the question became whether Reyes's decision reflected the judgment a reasonably competent dispatcher would have exercised given the explicit safety warnings.
Rajesh Rao, a litigator, overlooked a statute of limitations in a commercial case and the claim was dismissed. When the client sued for malpractice, the court measured Rao's conduct against what a reasonably competent attorney handling similar matters would have done in reviewing the file and calendaring deadlines.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ralph Richardson, a seventeen-year-old apprentice at Republic Automotive, took a repaired sports car onto a state highway for a high-speed test drive and caused a collision. The injured motorist claimed Richardson failed to meet the standard a reasonably competent driver would observe when performing an adult activity on public roads.
Rowan Russell was convicted of capital murder after his appointed lawyer conducted no mitigation investigation. On collateral review the court asked whether the lawyer's performance fell below what a reasonably competent attorney would have done when preparing for the penalty phase.
Renata Russo, a state executive official, authorized a search later held to violate the Fourth Amendment. When sued, she raised qualified immunity. The court examined whether a reasonably competent public official in her position would have known that the action violated clearly established constitutional rights at the time.
Ruby Rivera testified on direct examination about items seized from his luggage. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked about a matching T-shirt found in an illegal search. The court considered whether the questions would have occurred to a reasonably competent cross-examiner based on the direct testimony alone.
The standard is objective. It asks what a competent professional in the same role would have known or done, not whether the actor honestly believed the conduct was proper. An honest but unreasonable mistake therefore fails the test.
No. The same objective benchmark is used for public officials claiming qualified immunity, for cross-examiners, and for other professionals whose conduct is measured against the skill expected of a competent person in that position.
The defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Isolated errors are usually insufficient. The inquiry focuses on the overall performance in light of prevailing professional norms.
It is closely related. Both measure conduct against what a competent actor would do, but the professional version incorporates the specialized knowledge and training expected of someone in that role rather than a generic reasonable person.
…Cf. Trapnell v. United States, 725 F.2d, at 153 (in several years of applying "farce and mockery" standard along with "reasonable competence" standard, court "never found that the result of a case hinged on the choice of a particular standard"). In particular, the minor differences in the lower courts' precise formulations of…