Opinion ID: 2156855
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conflict of Interests and Attorney Ethics

Text: The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct impose limitations on multiple representation of clients. Rule 1.7(b) addresses the simultaneous representation of co-parties. The Comment to Rule 1.7 states [t]he potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants in a criminal case is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent more than one codefendant. [5] The United States Supreme Court has explained the rationale for the general rule against joint representation: The likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are notoriously hard to predict, even for those thoroughly familiar with criminal trials. It is a rare attorney who will be fortunate enough to learn the entire truth from his own client, much less be fully apprised before trial of what each of the Government's witnesses will say on the stand. A few bits of unforeseen testimony or a single previously unknown or unnoticed document may significantly shift the relationship between multiple defendants. [6] Accordingly, the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice provide that, except in unusual situations, lawyers should routinely decline to represent multiple defendants in criminal cases. The specific applicable section of the ABA Defense Function Standard regarding conflicts of interest provides: (c) Except for preliminary matters such as initial hearings or applications for bail, defense counsel 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 defense counsel should decline to act for more than one of several codefendants except in unusual situations when, after careful investigation, it is clear either that no conflict is likely to develop at trial, sentencing, or at any other time in the proceeding or that common representation will be advantageous to each of the codefendants represented and, if either case, that: (i) the several defendants give an informed consent to such multiple representation; and (ii) the consent of the defendants is made a matter of judicial record. In determining the presence of consent by the defendants, the trial judge should make appropriate inquiries respecting actual or potential conflicts of interest of counsel and whether the defendants fully comprehend the difficulties that defense counsel sometimes encounters in defendant multiple clients. [7] The ABA Defense Function Standards are intended to provide defense counsel with reasoned and appropriate professional advice. They are also intended to serve as a guide to what is deemed to be proper conduct. [8] The United States Supreme Court and this Court have held that the judiciary has an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings are fair. [9] Trial judges must recognize a presumption in favor of a defendant's counsel of choice. [10] The Sixth Amendment right to have assistance by the attorney of one's choice, however, is not absolute. [11] In fact, the right to effective representation by an attorney with undivided loyalty is so integral to the proper administration of justice that, in some cases, it must take precedence over the expressed preference of the defendants and their attorney. [12] In United States v. Dolan , the Third Circuit held that the exercise of the court's supervisory powers by disqualifying an attorney representing multiple defendants, in spite of the defendant's express desire to retain that attorney, does not necessarily abrogate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights: when a trial court finds an actual conflict of interest which impairs the ability of a criminal defendant's chosen counsel to conform with the [applicable] Code of Professional Responsibility, the court should not be required to tolerate an inadequate representation of a defendant. Such representation not only constitutes a breach of professional ethics and invites disrespect for the integrity of the court, but it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge to be free from future attacks over the adequacy of the waiver or the fairness of the proceedings in his own court and the subtle problems implicating the defendant's comprehension of the waiver. Under such circumstances, the court can elect to exercise its supervisory authority over members of the bar to enforce the ethical standard requiring an attorney to decline multiple representation. [13] The Federal District Court for the District of Delaware has taken such action. [14] The Federal District Court subsequently unequivocally held that a trial court may in certain situations reject a defendant's choice of counsel on the ground of a potential conflict of interest, because a serious conflict may indeed destroy the integrity of the trial process. [15] Similarly, this Court has held that trial judges have the power to disqualify trial counsel, when necessary, to preserve the integrity of the adversary process in the actions before them. [16] It is not only the interest of a criminal defendant but the institutional interest in the rendition of just verdicts in criminal cases [that] may be jeopardized by unregulated multiple representation. [17]