explained to the poor the representation of mr all would have created a this able in conflict of interest that would have prevented her from going forward under two mutually reinforcing items while the only rules exactly what ms campanella we did immediately upon being appointed she notified that she faced two different but somewhat related conflicts of interest first was an individual those which would have had her and all of her colleagues share in that adversarial conflict under rule one point zero now the united states supreme court has been very clear about how this circumstance should be dealt with under holloway against arkansas as well as this court's decision subsequent decision in people against rights when this sort of conflict is brought to the court's attention early on she knew that there already was an actual conflict between her existing clients and his call as a result the deal the circuit court here said that mr kaplan only had to provide concrete evidence that an actual conflict already exists that's not true under holloway under sprites or it was sufficient for her to make a representation to the court that based upon confidential information she knew an actual conflict of this is andy under hollow itself as well as the subsequent u s supreme court decision all she needed to do was say that there was a potential conflict which unquestionably there was as a result the circuit boards contempt for  just by point of clarification if we reject if we reject the argument that the claim that the office cannot represent more than one defendant based on the twenty ten rules which i think you'll probably get into right yes said some point so i'm going i'm going to head maybe far afield would there have to be a real man based on what happened below if we disagree with that argument does  the first to say i don't think the circuit court was particularly clear on's but it seems to me the circuit court agreed with ms campanella that she did face it will one point seven conflicts she simply have not provided enough proof as to whether that conflict existed which as i sat think is inconsistent with sprite certain with following here's why i believe subsequently and this is in the supplemental records we provide the transcript from the july eighteenth hearing the circuit court agreed to allow this to withdraw from representing to of the six criminal defendants in this case that decision only makes sense if the circuit court believed one of two things either that there was an imputed conflict as a firm or on the other hand so i think with regard to the one point seven conflicts with your position as the proof is there the judge who steered with respect to coal with respect to the standard that's correct or anyone not that there would have to be a new theory he was either right limited circumstances in which the attorney client privilege can be reached and this certainly wasn't one of them particularly in light of holiday let me let me let me just ask you the you can  least incorporate this in your argument one point one zero the twenty ten rules of professional conduct were america thirty years after the decision and robinson robinson held that the public defender office is not a firm for purposes of it rule but i mention although the the twenty ten rules don't specifically exclude the public defender's office what do we do with the black letter law that presumes that the court mine if it's strikes me as i think the answer your question is yes justice thomas because there's been an intervening development and that is that we now have eight attacks to apply again if the work is going to reiterate s definition of what a firm is and will one point zero c and that's because it can't be done but the rule set is that if firm is any group of lawyers who are associated authorized to practice law and that is a zation izzie is an object the question is whether it appears someone from the public on the outside looking in but the roof of lawyers conduct themselves and hold themselves out in a a representation doesn't make the standards here of this rule absolutely not justice tyson let me explain why the multiple defended go back to the public defender right at the start of the way the general assembly ha simply has chosen to structure back office if the general simply wanted to create a multiple defendant unit that was not run by the same public defender that might hear at least at some level some of the problems general s that the general simply thought there was value in having a single person who is ultimately responsible for every representation undertaken by that office the second answer i've put your questions th is still an affiliation between the public defender's office of beef in the public defender's office and the other assistant public and the multiple of bennett you know they may have separate spaces but it is not as though the members of that old offended you know do not have different multiple multiple defended units and so that really doesn't hear anything for respect to those too but i don't think we can say that the system has worked swimming and here's why a person were to go back and look hollow we described as the evil of multiple representation that's the very strong language that back with the supreme court you with their scribes the evil is that it can be it is as much what a lawyer doesn't do as what a lawyer i'm not aware of one where they've alleged that i also recognize that the vast majority of these cases because of robinson where there was no objection raised at the outset of the representation were decided under the highly insolvent standard which is more akin to the strickland require showing of actual prejudice that adversely affected the performance of trial counsel those cases i think is the course where were the rest of the kyra case in the nelson decision from earlier this year it those cases are very few and far that the standard is essentially reduce the burden is reduced if the issue is brought to the course of action earlier i think the individual defendants you're talking about who've been represented by the multiple defendant you know for the most cases been fired cases because  ially would have been viewed under i think the preview thousand and ten rules and under robinson as being at least if not frivolous at least exceedingly difficult to raise that objection earlier early on and at the end of the day we simply can't know how many of those cases for all of those years were defense lawyer in the mall than it took ten percent off twenty percent off the ball because there is an affiliation with their columns they are going to be afraid of undermining and so while i certainly would commend the career the idea that they tried to deal with this problem with a multiple defendant unit it's a little bit of putting a band aid on a significantly larger world how many cases you think are involve between twenty and twenty five thousand cases of felony cases and murder cases the public defender's office handles each year in about one hundred thousand two hundred twenty thousand this in the years we're talking about given that caseload between six hundred and eight hundred multiple defendant cases at any given time so we're talking about a relatively small percentage now i certainly would not stand here and tell that finding lawyers for six hundred eight hundred people is an insubstantial effort but i think there are two points i would m conflicts and multiple representation cases many of which do not require the appointment of private counsel legislators from across the country have created decentralized public defenders offices where all the assistants are centrally independent contractors some wireless the trial bar in some states that they accepted pro bono representation for a firm do so on some sort of regular basis there are a number of different solutions and at the end of the day it seems to me that if it time and time again and quite rightly so that simply citing the public this is not going to be some issue basis to ignore the constitutional right like the system that counsel before you on your time expires  a possible for this court to decide this case on the narrow issue of this case itself and whether there was insufficient showing a conflict that outside counsel should have been appointed or is it necessary that the court can dress the larger issue of whether it is an inherent or a pro so conflict for a court to appoint public defender in any multiple or any multiple defendant representation cases at justice garman i think the simple answer to that question is seems to me that that's not really a realistic so we can we could say well it wasn't a good and good thing should it do they should have allowed the motion or were allowed the public defender to withdraw and not address the other is ethically or constitutional that is going to be sufficient and the reason for that rule in the supreme court in front of this is hollow if you look at the transcript of oral argument there they discuss it that way the reason for that is the alternative intolerable saying the only way you can protect the sixth amendment right is to trade the confidence of your client intentionally undermine the to undermine the attorney client relationship reach that trust comment two and it sets black and white that ordinarily the representation that four per factional reasons i cannot provide any further explanation as to the nature of my conflict should be absolutely should be enough for either find under one point one zero the firm encompasses the office or that in this particular case the your office or recorder given that the ones that actually the alternative argument would be to say that there is a conflict under rule one point seven because the public defender is the one appointed to his counsel in all of those cases thank you thank you thank you there was a conflict in the only facts that were offered were that she was already representing the other defendants who were the first in that she couldn't share anything else because it could potentially raise privilege because we wanted rule regarding multiple phones and instead what should happen is that the full screen should be created and so in light of robinson the cook county public defender's office created them on the front of the vision in it based upon that there was an ethical screen created so that data and let me clarify here is that is one of the options of a further hearing with whether there's a direct conflict within the coal situation your honor i don't believe there it's in the reason why is because based upon this is useful to except the appointment in perjury so yes very well i mean you said private counsel was appointed what's the difference between mad circumstance of him her going back and say i want i want to chance to give more to enter all jurors to indicate that of there's all the surgeons made by the county public defender's office in allowed the public defender's office to withdraw from two of the four defendants because there was a conflict based on publicly available information in that two of the fans were charged with intimidation just continuing to refuse from this cold perspective it would either lead to the continuing representation by the private attorney or would lead to the subsequent appointment of the exception acceptance of representation  you taking notes mr brill all right remember that question is one of the things which is truly important counsel started off by saying this case involves two companies one and one point seven one under one point no one point seven b  one point one government officials government lawyers like miss him to now a rule one point seven doesn't apply in the same way in fact one point one one point one one the specifically says except as otherwise expressly permitted by law robin point one one and so what we have here is judge pittman being faced with a public defender refusing to accept a point where the case law says she is she can serve without him suffering a conflict in the city says it is that would it would really up and the system as it exists and it may actually you just want to bring one back point mr brock said that the multiple defendant division words band aid on something that doesn't help but that's not true because that's exactly what every state does in the situation hearing in cook county what is expected is that the multiple defendants vision is going to represent the second defendant and if there are more defendants and they will find a lawyer from other parts of the of the office from other person accounts or somebody maybe from court telling you that i've talked to my client i know there's a conflict can't tell you what the nature of it is because it's going to tip off the prosecution and tell the judge when to preside over the trial something that i might not want to reveal about the guilt or innocence of my client that that is where that's the waters that can't go beyond that point and so while i understand the court's concern here it at the end of the day it seems to be a far greater sense to say that in to remote versus possibility of conflict i mean is there much can you be much more remote then there's a possibility of a conflict new beds that's the portion that  ordinarily the risk of a conflict of interest arising multiple representation is so great that a lawyer should decline the appointment what mr skelton is proposing is a two class for an individual able to afford confident that the representation multiple representation simply should not go for an ordinary course absent the very rare circumstances in which the multiple representations allowed to go forward to one point saying they have to live with the rest of their on their counsel not only might have a conflict and might have a serious risk of it but that they already believe that they're very that the conflict is likely to arise and try it seems to need that and then they said they would follow and so it strikes me as notable piers ever since one thousand nine when the code professional conduct was created which is very much tied to the mob rules this or in its rules has had only moved towards in friends or not depends upon the vagaries of the state's rules of professional conduct needs to be one rule nationwide when it comes to the right to counsel and the only standard that exists at a national level is the one provided by forward and back from defended is not going to be able to assist in their own defense because they can't feel confident in talking to their lawyer that simply cannot be the rule and finally i just want to come back to how the rules interact here with how the public defender this sport has created its rules against the backdrop of a single public defender and i'm frankly perplexed at the idea that will one point eleven provides an exception it says rule one point seven explicitly in party rule one point seven applies to government it applies to government lawyers like the public defender unless there is licit statement somewhere else that says those rules don't apply the state has not identified any authority explicitly saying that when it comes to public defenders conflicts of interest don't matter and that's the burden that they have to sustain to get out from under the rules of the state has gone out of its way in this case to avoid talking about reverse a decision thank you thank you