Opinion ID: 2321057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conflicts within the Office of the Public Defender

Text: The case sub judice involves two attorneys from the same district office [10] of the Public Defender, representing two different defendants (not co-defendants). While this Court has never constructed a bright line rule as to conflicts of interest within public defenders' offices, it has examined conflicts of interest within private law firms. [11] In Austin, 327 Md. at 381, 609 A.2d at 730, two attorneys from the same private law office were representing two co-defendants. As in the case sub judice, we examined whether defense counsel labored under such a conflict of interest that the defendant's constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated. We explained that [t]he cases which have considered the issue have generally concluded that representation of co[-]defendants by partners or associates in a private law firm should be treated the same, for purposes of conflict of interest analysis, as representation of co[-]defendants by one attorney. Austin, 327 Md. at 383, 609 A.2d at 732. We concluded that the potential for a conflict of interest is present whenever co[-]defendants are represented by the same lawyer or by lawyers who are associated in practice. Austin, 327 Md. at 385, 609 A.2d at 733. We declined, however, to examine in Austin whether public defender offices were considered private law firms for purposes of such conflicts of interest analyses. We explained that [w]ith regard to public defender offices, there appears to be some disagreement among the cases as to whether, and to what extent, a public defender's office is to be viewed like a single private law firm for purposes of applying conflict of interest principles.... We have no occasion in the instant case to explore this matter. Austin, 327 Md. at 384-85 n. 3, 609 A.2d at 732-33 n. 3. This Court has, therefore, never before resolved whether general conflict of interest principles apply, as a per se rule, to the representation of individuals with adverse interests within the same public defender district office. The Court of Special Appeals did confront this issue, however, in Graves v. State, 94 Md.App. 649, 654-56, 619 A.2d 123, 126 (1993), rev'd on other grounds, 334 Md. 30, 637 A.2d 1197 (1994). Graves was charged with assault and attempted robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon. A man named Trusty was a co-defendant in the case. Both men were represented by assistant public defenders from the same district office of the Office of the Public Defender. Graves filed a motion for a mistrial and motion to strike the appearance of the Office of the Public Defender, in his case, on the grounds that a conflict of interest existed. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial and refused to strike the appearance of the Office of the Public Defender. Graves appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court did not adopt a per se rule that a public defender's office is the same as a private law firm, with regards to conflicts of interests. It stated, however, that [a]lthough we do not adopt a per se rule, we regard the loyalty of each Maryland lawyer to a client to be of the `utmost importance,' which is not to be `diminished, fettered, or threatened in any manner by his loyalty to another client.' Graves, 94 Md.App. at 667, 619 A.2d at 132 ( quoting Allen v. District Court, 184 Colo. 202, 519 P.2d 351, 353 (1974) (en banc)). Furthermore, the Graves court determined that [f]or the purposes of this opinion, district offices of the district public defender are analogous to independent private law firms. Graves, 94 Md.App. at 670, 619 A.2d at 133. The court continued: When [a] potential conflict is brought to the attention of the court, it must conduct a full evidentiary hearing to determine if facts peculiar to the case preclude the representation of competing interests by separate members of the public defender's office. Miller, 38 Ill. Dec. 775, 404 N.E.2d at 203. Graves, 94 Md.App. at 671, 619 A.2d at 134. The court determined that the record was incomplete as to Trusty's representation but that the record was clear that the trial court found that a conflict of interest arose between the assistant public defenders, but it failed to explore fully the nature and extent of any conflict. Graves, 94 Md.App. at 673, 619 A.2d at 135. The court explained: When the issue is raised by the court, the Public Defender, the State or a defendant, the trial court, in determining whether there is a conflict of interest, should 1. determine whether attorneys employed by the same public defender's office can be considered the same as private attorneys associated in the same law firm; 2. weigh factors relating to the protection of confidential information by considering whether there are separate offices, facilities and personnel; and 3. determine whether, as a consequence of having access to confidential information, an assistant public defender refrained from effectively representing a defendant. [] We do not intend that the three considerations set out above should in any way limit the court in its determination of whether a conflict of interest exists. When the potential conflict is brought to the attention of the court, it must conduct a full evidentiary hearing to determine if facts peculiar to the case preclude the representation of competing interests by separate members of the public defender's office. State v. Miller, 79 Ill.2d 454, 38 Ill.Dec. 775, 404 N.E.2d 199, 203 (1980). The court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether, and to what extent, a conflict of interest existed that prejudiced Graves at trial. Graves, 94 Md.App. at 673, 619 A.2d at 135. The court explained that if the trial court discovered no conflict, then the judgments could stand. If it found a conflict that prejudiced Graves, then the court was to vacate the judgments and award Graves a new trial. The intermediate appellate court in Graves also acknowledged, as this Court did in Austin, supra, that jurisdictions remain divided on the issue of how to treat public defender's offices during a conflict of interest analysis. Some jurisdictions have treated public defender's offices in the same manner as private law firms during the course of a conflict of interest analysis. See, e.g., Williams v. Warden, 217 Conn. 419, 586 A.2d 582, 589 n. 5 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 129 Ariz. 67, 628 P.2d 950, 953-54 (1981) (en banc); State v. Smith, 621 P.2d 697, 698-99 (Utah 1980); Allen, 519 P.2d at 353; Ward v. State, 753 So.2d 705, 708 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000). Other jurisdictions have instead expressed a need for the trial court to examine the potential for conflict. See, e.g., Asch v. State, 62 P.3d 945, 953 (Wyo.2003) (concluding that a case-by-case inquiry, rather than per se disqualification, [is] appropriate for cases alleging a conflict of interest based on representation of co-defendants by separate attorneys from the State Public Defender's Office); State v. Bell, 90 N.J. 163, 447 A.2d 525, 529 (N.J. 1982) (requiring the court to determine the likelihood of prejudice resulting); People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157, 162 (1979) (requiring the trial court to conduct a case-by-case inquiry to determine whether, and to what extent, a conflict of interest existed). In addition, as Petitioner sets forth in his brief, the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 123 (2000), agrees with Petitioner's position in this case. It explains that any conflict of interest affecting one lawyer applies to any and all other lawyers who are associated with that lawyer in rendering legal services to others through a law partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship, or similar association. It explains further that the rules on imputed conflicts and screening of this Section apply to a public-defender organization as they do to a law firm in private practice in a similar situation. Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 123 cmt. (d)(iv) (2000). We hold that, at a minimum, each district office of the public defender should be treated as a private law firm for conflict of interest purposes.