Opinion ID: 994745
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Extent of the Breakdown in Communication

Text: The final factor we consider in determining whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to substitute counsel is whether there was a total breakdown in communication between attorney and client such that it prevented the attorney from mounting an adequate defense. See Mullen, 32 F.3d at 896. Dukes and his attorney had a breakdown in communication that lasted approximately eight days, from the date he reviewed the Government's response until the date of the hearing. At the hearing the district court gave Dukes the option of reasserting the motion to withdraw at a later date if he and his attorney could not settle their differences. Dukes never brought any continuing communication problems to the attention of the district court. An eight-day discontinuation of communication between lawyer and client over the course of a five-month period of representation does not create a substantial impediment to the attorney's ability to put forth an adequate defense. Furthermore it is clear from the record that Cornely and Dukes discussed important issues during the course of the trial and that the defense mounted by Cornely led to Dukes' acquittal on three of the counts with which he was charged. Thus, we conclude that the eight-day interruption in communication did not prevent an adequate defense.