literally cry out for some explanation why was just rodriguez never told that the resolution trust corporation which had initiated his prosecution and was acting as receiver his savings and loan company was at the very moment that this law firm was undertaking to defend him being represented before this court in a pending appeal i take it you specific point is with respect to the settlement is that correct well what work work intending that this conflict did affect the conduct  the allegation and the effect that it had was that the settlement with the r t c was never used to cross examine the two key witnesses against the defendant yes but how would you actually gave to these two witnesses a seven million dollar arbitration a work that was never really brought out in cross examining these witnesses what they had to gain from their cooperation with the r t c and and their giving of the testimony against mr rodriguez that's conflict number one and it just gets worse from there conflict number two is that at the very moment mr rodriguez is representing k p engineering and and then it gets even worse that the law firm that is representing him employees the united states attorney who declined prosecution in this case  mr rodriguez is like to believe that that relationship will actually enhanced his defense he has never told that the rules of ethics will require that mr rusinow actually be isolated and droves of access to information to which he was titled under any theory well i don't agree that he's not entitled to it under any theory in fact he was disadvantaged by being represented mind with respect to state of mind the what his lawyer will tell him that ethically wrists now it can't communicate anything that they've got to build a wall around every competent lawyer knows that so how  how does your client get an expectation that somebody is going to be unethical and that he can challenge the case because the person is ethical my client doesn't know that communications between the two you really diminishing your case by hanging on to this third when it just doesn't i don't see how it fits in all right well i agree with you the first two issues alone will require a reversal in this case o conflicts as they are concurrent conflicts that is they are a k p m g what can you show in terms of the time overlap wasn't undertaken six months after the defense of mr rodriguez was undertaken and then a second case eighteen months after the representation so these are conflicts i guess what i'm focusing on the over was what hoping you would stablish that there was an overlap here that would in fact give rise to an actual conflict as to the k p n yes the the affidavit filed by the coolie lawyer indicated the time frame in which the representation of g was undertaken and then it clearly was six months after the defense of mr rodriguez was undertaken for the first case and eighteen months after the representation of mr rodriguez was undertaken with respect to the second now what the government does contend with respect to the r t c conflict was that the case was winding down they were just cleaning up a few last minute details with respect to the case  was not directly referred to in the settlement but that certainly would not preclude the lawyer from cross examining and vigorously challenging the credibility of these witnesses based on their be an actual conflict of interest before the sullivan standard is even triggered with regard to the alleged conflict concerning the art being there is no showing at all that concerning an agreement with the r t c and what is the record show in terms of disclosure of the representation of these other or at least those other two clients  work was and to provide individual estate planning advice presumably drafting a will to three individual employees of a large accounting firm may may be ethical considerations have changed since i was a practicing lawyer and this may be old school but when i was a practicing lawyer i was responsible to know and was considered to know everything that happens within the firm and if i know that we represent another client and there's a conflict i was obliged to respond that there is a conflict in my client's the problem we have here is is over whether there should have been a hearing that is was  or was or enough shown that there should have been here a hearing in the court so that he could show the things that you claim now should have been shown it seems to me an argument can be made i have made up my mind counsel's response was a little premature but i it seems to me that there's a real issue here of whether or not there was sufficient shown for a hearing that is primus facia you've got a lawyer representing three clients and that in a case two of them might have been impacted upon he does not make any disclosure that he represents them and that they should have had an opportunity to have a hearing that there was an abuse of discretion and not holding a hearing  that's where i'd like to have your whole focus your argument why wasn't there sufficient showing just by the very nature of the representation not the small amount of billing but just the very nature of the representation why was not sufficient for a hearing think for two reasons the first i would like to focus on the fact that there was a hearing says white did have an evidentiary hearing the evidence here is hearing involved testimony by mr kneale who was mr rodriguez the trial coun record page three i believe the who had the state planning issues or referred to them in other words is it clear that under no circumstances did the firm ever represent the accounting firm itself documentation to find out that as an actual conflict of interest were cool we got word law from represented adverse interest i think is an enormous leap and unsupported by the supreme court precedent in this  in councils argument number one when did the disclosure take place when did mr rodriguez learn of these conflicts in his petition which was of course signed under oath he alleged and this  on page four of the excerpts of record at no time was the defendant informed nor did he learn that the law firm providing his representation was concurrently represented until after the conclusion of the remarkable about this your honor is that the way the client learned about the conflict with after the trial was over he says to his lawyer will you represent me in my lawsuit against k p m g for negligence and his lawyer tells him i can't do that because we have a conflict i think have a conflict when the trial was over they certainly had a conflict while the trial was going on in the client was never told about it and  likewise with respect to the r t c conflict he never learned about that until after the trial was over now there's enough alleged in here to at least call for a hearing to at least call for an explanation of what's going on here why wasn't the client what impact did this have on the representation when counsel says we had an evidentiary hearing the evidence for a hearing was conducted under the strickland standard and the judge did not allow us to go into the conflict