Opinion ID: 1463032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Representing more than one defendant.

Text: In the instant case, appellant was represented by the Public Defender Association of Philadelphia at the time of the preliminary hearing. At trial, appellant attempted to show that his brother Alphonso committed the robbery. Testimony in the record reveals that Alphonso, at the behest of his mother, indicated a willingness to accept criminal responsibility for the robbery. Alphonso's intention was confirmed by Scott Wilson, a social worker, and Detective Bonsera of the Philadelphia Police Department. Prior to Alphonso's admitting criminal responsibility, however, an unnamed public defender informed him that it was in his best interests not to testify. In Commonwealth v. Via, 455 Pa. 373, 316 A.2d 895 (1974), we held that members of the public defender's office would be considered members of the same firm for purposes of presenting a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The rationale of Via, as it concerned public defenders being considered as one law firm, is equally applicable to the question of conflict of interest in multiple representations. Having determined that the Public Defenders Association of Philadelphia is a law firm, it is clear that two members of the same firm are prohibited from representing multiple clients with inconsistent defenses. Section 3.5(b) of the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Defense Function  Conflict of Interest, provides: Except for preliminary matters such as initial hearings or applications for bail, a lawyer or lawyers who are associated in practice should not undertake to defend more than one defendant in the same criminal case if the duty to one of the defendants may conflict with the duty to another. The potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to act for more than one of several co-defendants except in unusual situations when, after careful investigation, it is clear that no conflict is likely to develop and when the several defendants give an informed consent to such multiple representation. [3]