2) Even if they are, I think it’s quite something for an appellate court to not say something about an attorney that admits to filing frivolous claims.

III) How do you know I’m “feigning”? It surely was dramatic, but not in the least fake.

It was more of a play on the Court’s use of the words.

Even if a claim is “weak” because, by your definition, the only evidence supporting it is my client’s testimony, I don’t think it’s my place to worry about clogging the court system by bringing the claim. Once I’ve explained the realities to my client, i.e., IAC claims are very difficult to win and the court will likely credit your attorney’s version over yours, if my client wants to proceed because he/she maintains that it went down the way he/she says it did, then I think it is my obligation to raise the claim and put my client on the stand. (This is obviously assuming I have no reason to believe my client would present false testimony).

I see your point about how cooperating attorneys can eliminate claims from ever being litigated, but in my view, that isn’t because a claim is “weak.” Rather, it’s because a claim is “frivolous.” It’s because whatever information the attorney provides kills my claim in a way that I can’t fix, or offer evidence to rebut.