Opinion ID: 220344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nature of the Conflict Between the Attorney and the Client

Text: After determining the nature of the conflict between Marrero and Zambon, the district court could have concluded that it was not so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense. Jennings, 83 F.3d at 148. To be sure, Marrero clearly indicated to the district court that he disagreed with Zambon's strategy for defending his case. See, e.g., Mot. Hr'g Tr. 6, May 16, 2008, ECF No. 51 (Me and him [Zambon], we got a conflict in every point, so if I have a conflict on every point with my attorney, so I don't see how I can go in trial and be properly represented while me and my attorney we have a conflict from the day we started, so that's not fair.). Nonetheless, a defendant's differences of opinions with his attorney do not create a complete breakdown of communication that compromises his defense. This Court has previously emphasized that a defendant's dissatisfaction with the responses he got from his lawyer, not with the lack of opportunity or his inability to talk to his lawyer or contact his lawyer, does not establish a total lack of communication. Saldivar-Trujillo, 380 F.3d at 278 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Moreover, a lack of communication resulting from a defendant's refusal to cooperate with his attorney does not constitute good cause for substituting counsel. Vasquez, 560 F.3d at 468. In this case, the district court found that nearly 100 percent of the alleged conflicts here represents the defendant's fundamental misunderstanding of the law, which Mr. Zambon has clearly correctly provided to the defendant, but he chooses not to accept. Given Marrero's descriptions of his problems with Zambon, this factual finding is not clearly erroneous. Marrero never expressed concern about his ability to consult with Zambon about his case. Instead, Marrero believed that Zambon should be pursuing a number of meritless arguments, despite Zambon's and the district court's numerous attempts to explain why Marrero's concerns were groundless. Marrero's most significant complaint  that Zambon had somehow tricked him into pleading guilty  was accommodated by the district court when it allowed Marrero to withdraw his plea. After granting that request, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that Marrero's remaining objections did not merit substitution of counsel.