Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extent of Conflict

Text: The conflict between Stenson and his attorneys started as early as January 1994 when Fred Leatherman called him a liar, causing Stenson to leave the meeting [o]ut of sheer frustration. Personal Restraint Pet., App. C at 1. On two separate occasions during the following months Stenson told his attorneys he no longer wanted their representation, telling Leatherman in May that his decision to not defend me in the guilt phase of the trial would be against my wishes. Id. On July 12, 1994 Stenson petitioned the court to substitute counsel or allow him to proceed pro se because of his concern that Leatherman was not planning to defend me during the guilt phase of the trial. Id. at 2. During the July 13 in camera hearing, Leatherman stated: It is Mr. Neupert's and my opinion ... that the guilt phase is not winable and we do not want to do anything during the course of the guilt phase which ... [would] prejudice Mr. Stenson's defense in the penalty phase. Put another way, from the perspective of the lawyers, the only issue in this case is whether Mr. Stenson lives or dies. From the perspective of Mr. Stenson, the only issue that is important to him is whether he is acquitted or not.  RP (July 13, 1994) at 3118 (emphasis added). The irreconcilable nature of the conflict could not have been clearer yet the trial court denied Stenson's motion to substitute counsel and three subsequent requests to proceed pro se. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 764-65, 940 P.2d 1239 (Sanders, J., dissenting). Two and a half weeks later on August 3 Leatherman himself petitioned the court to be removed as counsel, saying: And I'm very concerned about the nature of the attorney-client relationship. Right now I don't feel like I have an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Stenson. I'm extremely frustrated with him to the point of really not wanting to go on with this case.... Quite frankly, I can't stand the sight of him. .... [T]he nature of my relationship with Mr. Stenson has been getting worse and worse and worse. To the point now where I don't think we are even communicating. I'm certainly not communicating with him and he's not communicating with me and we are heading in different directions on this case. RP (Aug. 3, 1994) at 1501-02 (emphasis added). [5] Somehow the majority distinguishes this case from Brown and Frazer, saying the breakdowns there were tantamount to a total lack of communication. Majority at 13. Since both parties here characterized the relationship as just that, a total lack of communication, it is unclear what more would be needed for this case to have risen to that level in the eyes of the majority. The conflict and lack of communication was so bad it made Stenson afraid to go forward with them and [ ] afraid to go forward without them, too. RP (Aug. 3, 1994) at 1506. This was an irreconcilable conflict under the first Moore factor.