Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Counsel's Fundamental Duty to Timely Withdraw

Text: Petitioner's argument for this claim is interwoven with the arguments for a claim under the first issue. The fundamental duty referred to is not to violate RPC 1.7(b): A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests .... As we stated above in the discussion of the first issue, the `lawyer's own interest' denotes a financial or familial interest or an interest arising out of the lawyer's exposure to culpability. A disagreement over trial strategy between court-appointed counsel and his client does not violate the RPC. The RPC are consistent with the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, which indicate that the kinds of decisions complained of here are `the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client.' 1 ABA, STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE at 4-5.2. Contrary authority provided by Petitioner has been stricken. In his letter to Stacey Storm, Petitioner claims that Leatherman told him he would not defend Stenson vigorously because Leatherman's religious convictions would preclude his being involved in a case in which his client could receive the death penalty. Letter to Stacey at 2-3. Such a claim, if credible, might rise to the level of a conflict of interest. However, the claim itself is not logically sound; if it were true, Leatherman should not have agreed to work on any death penalty case. Second, Stenson's present counsel declined to make an issue of Leatherman's religious convictions; they neither briefed the issue nor inquired about them at his deposition. Finally, there does not appear to be any evidence on the record for this claim (The Court: ... What I do not have before me is any indication that counsel have an ethical problem that precludes them from proceeding to represent you. RVP at 3318-19.) In a similar position is Stenson's claim that Leatherman and the judge arranged to keep Stenson's trial short because they did not want to cancel previously scheduled vacations. Letter to Stacey at 5. We reject Petitioner's claim on this issue.