Opinion ID: 782196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion by Denying the Defender's Motion?

Text: 41 However, Leslie and Lussier do not dictate the outcome of this appeal, which arises in a different procedural context and presents the question of whether defense counsel should have been allowed to withdraw rather than the Leslie/Lussier question, whether an allegedly conflicted defense counsel denied the defendant a fair trial. As the Supreme Court stated in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978), timely objection by defense counsel presents a very different question. Id. at 490, 98 S.Ct. 1173 (requiring no showing of prejudice in part because in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests the evil—it bears repeating—is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process); see also Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 1245, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002) (requiring that petitioner show prejudice since this was not a case in which ... counsel protested his inability simultaneously to represent multiple defendants) (emphasis added). In Leslie, the defendant himself asked the court to appoint the allegedly conflicted attorney as his new counsel. 103 F.3d at 1097. New counsel for the witness then explained to the court that the witness was prepared to waive any conflict. When the witness's attorney made this statement, neither Leslie nor the attorney he wanted to represent him objected or said anything about a conflict of interest. Id. In Lussier, the government first drew the court's attention to defense counsel's potential conflict of interest. 71 F.3d at 460. After the witness waived any conflict, the defendant stated that he wished to continue to have his potentially conflicted attorney represent him. Id. This case is unlike Leslie and Lussier in that the Defender moved to withdraw and continued to believe that he could not ethically conduct an effective cross-examination of Kaid even after Kaid, represented by new counsel, consented to the Defender's use of his secrets and confidences. 42 As we have explained, the pertinent authorities likely would allow the Defender to continue to represent Oberoi in the circumstances of this case. However, as we also have discussed, the Defender did not interpret the disciplinary rule unreasonably when it argued that the rule prohibits the use of a client's confidences and secrets to his disadvantage even with consent and consequently prohibited the Defender from cross-examining Kaid based on his confidences and secrets. Even interpreting the pertinent rule as the government suggests, we note that the disciplinary rules represent the minimum ethical obligations of an attorney and that an attorney does not act unreasonably by maintaining a higher standard. The duty to preserve a former client's secrets is a very important one. See Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562, 571 (2d Cir.1973) (The dynamics of litigation are far too subtle, the attorney's role in that process is far too critical, and the public's interest in the outcome is far too great to leave room for even the slightest doubt concerning the ethical propriety of a lawyer's representation in a given case. These considerations require application of a strict prophylactic rule to prevent any possibility, however slight, that confidential information acquired from a client during a previous relationship may subsequently be used to the client's disadvantage.). Thus, an attorney who expresses ethical reservations about cross-examining a former client using his secrets and confidences, even with client consent, acts in the highest tradition of the profession. 43 As Lowenthal points out, use by an attorney of a former client's secrets is degrading for the attorney and humiliating for the witness. Here, the Defender's cross-examination also could affirmatively disadvantage Kaid. The government agreed not to oppose a sentence at the lowest point of the Guidelines range but reserved its right to modify this position if it learned new information. Certainly the possibility that relevant negative information would emerge on cross-examination is not a remote one. And, only the Defender knows with certainty whether it has information of this sort. 44 In order to avoid lurking potential conflicts and to preserve the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, a district court has discretion to reject a defendant's waiver of an actual or potential conflict. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162-63, 108 S.Ct. 1692; United States v. Falzone, 766 F.Supp. 1265, 1272 (W.D.N.Y.1991). Some courts also have rejected a former client's consent or representations that the former client will consent. See United States v. Vasquez, 995 F.2d 40, 42 (5th Cir.1993) (affirming district court's rejection of defendant's waiver despite representation by defense counsel that another client who would be a witness against defendant had no problem with his joint representation): United States v. Messino, 852 F.Supp. 652, 654, 656-57 (N.D.Ill.1994) (refusing to accept current client's waiver of conflict and rejecting defense counsel's offer to secure waiver of former client); United States v. Alex, 788 F.Supp. 359, 361 (N.D.Ill.1992) (disqualifying counsel where former clients submitted affidavits consenting to subsequent representation but not consenting to disclosure of confidences). 45 Given this precedent, we believe that the district court abused its discretion by accepting Kaid's consent as a sufficient basis for denying the Defender's motion to withdraw. The combined circumstances in this case—the Defender's sincere and not unreasonable belief that it could not adequately represent Oberoi given its continued duty of loyalty to Kaid; the significant possibility that effective representation of Oberoi would require the Defender to cross-examine Kaid in a way that might harm Kaid when he was sentenced; the lack of circumstances suggesting tactical abuse; and the district court's failure to question Oberoi concerning his willingness to waive the conflict—created a substantial danger that the proceedings in both cases would not appear fair to all who observe them. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 160, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Because the institutional interest in the rendition of just verdicts in criminal cases may have been jeopardized by the district court's refusal to excuse the Defender, we have vacated this order and remanded for appointment of new counsel. Id.