Opinion ID: 1758769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Relieve Counsel

Text: For his first argument on appeal, Bullock contends that the trial court erred in refusing to relieve his attorney of record, Darrell F. Brown. Upon review of a trial court's denial of counsel's motion to withdraw, or a motion to relieve counsel, we uphold the lower court's ruling in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 308 Ark. 481, 825 S.W.2d 584 (1992). On May 4, 2000, Attorney Brown filed his motion to be relieved as counsel, and shortly thereafter, Bullock filed a similar motion requesting that Attorney Brown be dismissed only if the court ordered an adequate refund of fees paid in advance. At that time, Bullock's case was set for trial on June 19, 2000. The hearing on both motions was held on May 15, 2000, [3] and the trial court entered an order denying both motions on May 17, 2000. Attorney Brown cited Rule 1.16(b) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as the basis for his request to be relieved, stating that counsel considered Bullock's course repugnant or imprudent, and that despite reasonable warning, Bullock failed to substantially fulfill an obligation to him. In addition, counsel asserted that his continued representation would result in an unreasonable financial burden on him, but that he had taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to Bullock. In his pro se motion, Bullock responded that Attorney Brown did not have grounds to be discharged under Rule 1.16. In any event, according to Bullock, Attorney Brown had refused to perform as promised with the initial down payment to secure his services through trial and Bullock's family to be billed for the remainder of the balance. Bullock's motion asked the court to order Attorney Brown to perform his promised duties, or in the alternative, to relieve Attorney Brown and order him to partially refund any advance payment of fees. On appeal, Bullock claims that Attorney Brown was subject to a conflict of interest such that he should have been relieved as counsel. Specifically, Bullock contends there was a conflict regarding Attorney Brown's possible pecuniary interests in the case and whether the amounts paid by Bullock to Attorney Brown were sufficient and reasonable to retain him throughout the entire trial process. In concluding his argument on the point, Bullock states that the trial court's denial of his motion materially prejudiced [him] in having effective representation of his choosing. We start by observing that a defendant's right to counsel of choice is grounded in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is also guaranteed by Art. 2, § 10, of the Arkansas Constitution. While constitutionally guaranteed, the right to counsel of one's choosing is not absolute, and may not be used to frustrate the inherent power of the court to command an orderly, efficient, and effective administration of justice. Clements v. State, 306 Ark. 596, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991). Moreover, once competent counsel is obtained, any request for a change in counsel must be considered in the context of the public's interest in the prompt dispensation of justice. Id. Additionally, once an appellant has accepted representation by an attorney, the fact that he is dissatisfied with counsel's efforts does not entitle him to appointment of a different attorney. Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (per curiam). It is true that the United States Supreme Court has held that where a constitutional right to counsel exists, there is a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981). We review a trial court's ruling on disqualification of counsel for an abuse-of-discretion. Wilburn v. State, 346 Ark. 137, 56 S.W.3d 365 (2001) (applying the civil standard to criminal proceedings). The cornerstone principle in all conflict cases is whether prejudice will result to the client as a result of the conflict of interest. Id. As with any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner has the burden of providing factual support to demonstrate that the conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance. Nelson v. State, 344 Ark. 407, 39 S.W.3d 791 (2001). Here, Bullock retained Attorney Brown to represent him, and then one month before the scheduled trial date of June 19, 2000, both counsel and Bullock filed motions to have Attorney Brown relieved as legal counsel. Neither motion asserted that Attorney Brown had acted incompetently. In fact, the circuit court noted that Mr. Darrell Brown is an extremely capable criminal defense lawyer. While Bullock's motion did set forth certain differences between himself and his counsel regarding the fee arrangement, it did not expressly state that his attorney's representation was compromised by a conflict of interest. In denying the motions, the court considered the length of time this matter had been pending and the proximity of the trial date. Moreover, we are left to rank speculation about whether Bullock's counsel was hampered or impaired in any respect by a purported conflict of interest. Wilburn v. State, supra . We cannot say that under these facts the circuit court abused its discretion.