This Note proposes a new method of Sixth Amendment analysis. This analysis is consistent with the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky and its other Sixth Amendment precedent. It also responds to concerns that criminal defendants are treated fairly, on the one hand, and that the criminal justice system is not overburdened by an undermined plea system, on the other. This Note argues that the focus of the “competence prong” of the ineffective assistance test must be focused on the attorney’s knowledge and his action in relation to that knowledge. When an attorney knows—or reasonably should know—that a collateral consequence is looming over his client’s conviction, the Supreme Court, this Note, and common sense demand that the attorney advise his client on the matter.