Aside from the precatory "You’ve got to be crazy…", 

" on occasion, true mental incompetence does collide with questions of legal malpractice, and in this case, criminal conviction.  In ALLEN WOLFSON, -v- AVRAHAM MOSKOWITZ,  08 Civ. 8796 (DLC);UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK’; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45822;  May 29, 2009, Decided   we see the result:
 

"Allen Wolfson has filed suit against Avraham Moskowitz, Wolfson’s former attorney in a criminal matter. Moskowitz moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . For the following reasons, the Report is adopted, and the motion is granted.

Following trial, Wolfson moved for a new trial and to vacate his conviction, as well as to vacate his guilty plea entered in another case, arguing, inter alia, that the jury instructions were defective, that he was incompetent at the time of his trial and plea, and that his counsel was ineffective. The Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge, denied these motions in two separate opinions issued on the same day.  Judge Koeltl did find that Wolfson was not competent to be sentenced. Wolfson, . Wolfson was therefore provisionally sentenced and ordered to a facility for treatment, and will be given a final sentence when he is deemed competent.

The Report states that in a diversity action such as this case, a federal court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which the court sits. See Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135, 147 (2d Cir. 2008). Finding that the complaint against Moskowitz for failure to inform Wolfson that the indictment failed to charge a crime was a claim for the tort of legal malpractice, the Report applied New York’s "interest analysis," see White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp., 460 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 2006), and concluded that New York’s interest was paramount and therefore [*6] New York law applied. See, e.g., LNC Inv., Inc. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 935 F. Supp. 1333, 1350-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

The Report correctly concluded that under New York law, a party cannot maintain a cognizable claim for legal malpractice in connection with representation provided in a criminal case when his conviction still stands. See Britt v. Legal Aid Soc, Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 443, 447, 741 N.E.2d 109, 718 N.Y.S.2d 264 (2000); Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 173, 511 N.E.2d 1126, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605 (1987). Thus, because Wolfson has not had his conviction vacated and remains incarcerated, he fails to state a claim for malpractice and his complaint must be dismissed."