Opinion ID: 1058590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Disqualification of District Attorney General

Text: Davis next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to disqualify the District Attorney General, Victor S. Johnson, and his entire office based on the District Attorney General's employment of the trial court's former law clerk. He further argues on appeal that the motion should have been granted because the District Attorney General's office had no official screening policies in matters involving conflicts of interest. The State maintains that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. At a pre-trial hearing, Philip Wehby testified that he had worked as a law clerk for the trial judge, J. Randall Wyatt, and that as the law clerk, he had attended one or two ex parte hearings regarding this case. Wehby testified that he did not work on the case after being hired by the District Attorney General and that he had never discussed the case with anyone in the office. Although Wehby testified that he was unaware of any written policies in the District Attorney General's office regarding conflicts of interest, he stated that it was understood that he was to have no involvement in this prosecution and that he had no knowledge where the case file was kept. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify. [8] At the time of trial, [9] a prosecutor in a criminal case could be disqualified where there was an actual conflict of interest that prevented the prosecutor from exercising independent judgment free of compromising interests and loyalties. State v. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309, 312 (Tenn.2000) (quoting Tenn. R. Sup.Ct. 8, EC 5-1). Even if there was no actual conflict of interest, disqualification could also be based on an appearance of impropriety. Id. at 313; see also Clinard v. Blackwood, 46 S.W.3d 177, 187 (Tenn.2001) (`appearance of impropriety is' ... an independent ground upon which disqualification may be based). If disqualification of a prosecutor is required, the trial court must determine whether to also disqualify the entire District Attorney General's office. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d at 313. The trial court's determination requires an inquiry into whether the prosecutor who has the conflict of interest has participated in the ongoing prosecution, including the disclosure of any confidences, and whether the prosecution has established that the prosecutor has been screened from the prosecution. State v. Coulter, 67 S.W.3d 3, 30 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001); see also Clinard, 46 S.W.3d at 184. The decision is left to the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d at 313. In Clinard , which involved the disqualification of a law firm, this Court held that disqualification was required where an attorney who had represented one party to a lawsuit later accepted employment with the law firm that represented the opposing party in the same lawsuit. Clinard, 46 S.W.3d at 184. We adopted the following framework for determining whether an attorney's prior involvement in a case mandates disqualification of the attorney's new law firm in a subsequent representation: (1) whether a substantial relationship existed between the subject of the former and present representations; (2) whether the presumption of shared confidences has been rebutted with regard to the former representation; and (3) whether the presumption of shared confidences has been rebutted with regard to the present representation. Id. In applying this analysis in Clinard , we noted that a substantial relationship existed because the attorney's involvement in the prior case was so extensive that his employment with his new law firm could be regarded as a changing of sides. 46 S.W.3d at 184. We emphasized that the attorney's new law firm was an adversary against the [parties] in the very litigation in which [the attorney] once represented them. . . . Id. at 188. Although we observed that the presumption of shared confidences was rebutted by objective and verifiable evidence of procedures used by the new law firm that had screened the conflicted attorney from persons, files, or information pertaining to the ongoing case, we also concluded that the procedures did not remove the appearance of impropriety. Id. at 184, 188-89. Accordingly, we held that disqualification of the attorney's new law firm was required. Id. at 189. Although we have never addressed the precise circumstances presented in this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals has resolved similar cases. In State v. Tate, 925 S.W.2d 548 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995), the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that disqualification was required after a trial judge became the District Attorney General. In Tate, the evidence showed that the trial judge presided over several pre-trial rulings in the defendant's case, later became the District Attorney General, and then had four conversations about the case with the assistants who were prosecuting the defendant's case. Id. at 549. In ruling that the District Attorney General's office was disqualified from prosecuting the defendant, the Court of Criminal Appeals emphasized that the District Attorney, when serving as the trial judge, presided over several ex parte hearings during which the defense disclosed confidential matters and that the District Attorney later had lengthy discussions about the case with other prosecutors. Id. at 555-56. In contrast, in State v. Coulter, 67 S.W.3d 3 (Tenn.Crim.App.2001), the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that disqualification of the District Attorney General's office was not required. In Coulter , a defendant's counsel accepted employment with the District Attorney General's office before the defendant's case went to trial. Although counsel had an obvious conflict of interest, the evidence revealed that counsel had no discussions as an assistant district attorney about the defendant's case, had no involvement in the prosecution of the defendant's case, and followed the screening procedures the office had implemented to ensure he had no involvement or contact with the case. Id. at 26-27. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the conflict of interest did not require disqualification of the District Attorney General's office because there had been no disclosure of confidences or participation in the prosecution. Id. at 32. In our view, application of these decisions and principles establishes that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to disqualify the District Attorney General's office in the present case. The evidence revealed that Wehby had worked as a law clerk for the trial court and had attended one, maybe two ex parte hearings involving the trial judge and defense counsel. The trial court specifically found that his level of involvement while a law clerk was at most minimal. Indeed, there was no evidence as to what was discussed at the hearings and no showing that Wehby had a substantial relationship to these proceedings. In addition, after being employed by the District Attorney General, Wehby did not participate in the prosecution of this case, did not have any discussions about the prosecution of this case, and did not share or reveal any information with those who were prosecuting this case. As the trial court noted, Wehby had not discussed the case with anyone within the office and had no access to the case file, which [was] apparently kept separate from the office's other files. Moreover, although Wehby was not aware of a formal screening procedure in the District Attorney General's office, he testified that it was understood he was to have no contact or involvement with this ongoing prosecution. The present case is distinguishable from the decisions in Clinard and Tate. For example, in Clinard , the attorney represented and received confidential information from a party to a lawsuit and later began working for the law firm that represented the opposing party in that same lawsuit. Clinard, 46 S.W.3d at 184. We analogized the attorney to a baseball player who has switched teams in the middle of the game after learning the signals. Id. at 188. Similarly, in Tate, the District Attorney had ruled upon several pretrial, ex parte requests as the trial judge in a case and then later participated in the prosecution of the defendant's case by discussing the case with his assistants. Tate, 925 S.W.2d at 549; see also Lux v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 561, 484 S.E.2d 145 (1997). In contrast, in this case there was no evidence that Philip Wehby had a substantial role as a law clerk for the trial judge in the defendant's case, that he switched sides in the defendant's case, that he received confidential information, that he revealed confidential information, or that he participated in the prosecution of Davis. The undisputed evidence is that Wehby was effectively screened from this case after his employment with the District Attorney General and that he had no involvement or communications regarding this case. [10] Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disqualify the District Attorney General's office in this case.