Opinion ID: 1210535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Relationships Between Members of Whittier's Firm and the Underwood Family

Text: Wood argues that certain facts show a close relationship existed between two members of Whittier's firm (Bryan Murray and John Souza) and the Underwood family. Those facts include that: (1) Murray was Underwood's spiritual leader until five or six months before Jeralee was abducted; (2) Murray saw the Underwoods at least one time, if not three to four times, per week for years; (3) Mrs. Murray provided comfort and meals to the Underwood family after the abduction; (4) Murray participated in a search team to find Jeralee; (5) Murray and Souza were at the police station while Wood was being interrogated for the purpose of assisting the Chief of Police in breaking the news of Jeralee's death to the Underwoods; (6) In his own words, Murray strongly expressed the view that the firm should have nothing to do with representing Mr. Wood because Murray was very close to the Underwood family; (7) At the onset of the representation of Wood, Murray offered condolences and emotional support to the Underwood family; and (8) Both Murray and Souza have been consulted by Mr. Underwood in their roles as lawyers. While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rule 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9 or 2.2. I.R.C.P. 1.10. Two members of the public defender's firm had personal associations with the Underwood family. However, Murray's and Souza's belief that they should not represent Wood was based on personally held beliefs, not preclusive conflicts of interest as set forth in I.R.C.P. 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9, or 2.2. Wood has failed to show that any personal associations with the Underwoods by members of the firm who did not participate in the defense of this case affected Whittier's representation of Wood.