for determining prevailing professional norms, and have been used by both the Supreme Court and this Court for this purpose. See, e.g., Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 387, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (looking to ABA Guidelines to establish appropriate standard of common practice and finding that the State "has come up with no reason to think the [applicable guideline] impertinent here"); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (looking to Maryland professional standards and ABA Guidelines to determine the standard of reasonable professional conduct); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1, commentary, p. 4-55 (2d ed. 1980)); Murphy, 50 M.J. at 9-10 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, I also look to these standards
recognizing that the aba guidelines and federal law are instructive holding that sentencing guidelines commentary which is interpretive and instructive to application of a guideline is binding on federal courts holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law recognizing that analogous federal statutory provisions concerning fee awards are instructive in construing chapter 151b and that ada is federal counterpart to chapter 151b holding that though mississippi law governs the amount of the fee award here because the factors considered under state and federal law are nearly identical both state and federal cases are instructive