f riv ol ous ▁ground ( s ) ▁for ▁appeal , ▁the ▁att orney ▁be ▁allowed ▁to ▁withdraw ▁the ▁brief ▁and ▁remain ▁as ▁coun sel , ▁where up on ▁the ▁att orney ▁would ▁then ▁am end ▁the ▁appeal ▁to ▁argue ▁on ▁the ▁ground ( s ) ▁that ▁the ▁court ▁has ▁found .) ▁ ▁Pract ical ▁effect ▁The ▁decision ▁of ▁whether ▁or ▁not ▁to ▁file ▁an ▁Anders ▁brief ▁is ▁sometimes ▁difficult ▁for ▁law y ers ▁seeking ▁to ▁respect ▁the ▁eth ical ▁rules ▁on ▁f riv ol ity ▁while ▁being ▁ze alous ▁advoc ates ▁for ▁their ▁clients . ▁ ▁The ▁Oregon ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁noted ▁an ▁anom aly ▁with ▁the ▁Anders ▁decision : ▁if ▁coun sel ▁ra ises ▁no ▁grounds ▁for ▁appeal , ▁then ▁the ▁court ▁must ▁review ▁the ▁entire ▁record ▁to ▁determine ▁if ▁a ▁ground ▁for ▁appeal ▁may ▁exist , ▁but ▁if ▁coun sel ▁ra ises ▁any ▁ground ▁( even ▁only ▁one ), ▁then ▁the ▁court ▁is ▁required ▁to ▁review ▁only ▁that ▁portion ▁of ▁the ▁record ▁per tain ing ▁to ▁the ▁ground ▁raised ▁by ▁coun sel ▁and ▁is ▁not ▁required ▁to ▁review ▁any ▁portion ▁related ▁to ▁other ▁grounds ▁not ▁raised . ▁ ▁There ▁is ▁the ▁possibility ▁that ▁an ▁att orney ▁may ▁not ▁see ▁the ▁mer it ▁in ▁the ▁error ▁assigned ▁by ▁his ▁or ▁her ▁client , ▁and ▁a ▁client ▁may ▁have ▁vi able ▁grounds ▁for ▁the ▁client ' s ▁claim . ▁In ▁State ▁v . ▁Williams , ▁the ▁Ohio ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁granted ▁an ▁att orney ▁leave ▁to ▁withdraw ,