Opinion ID: 1425455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Positional Conflict

Text: The potential conflict identified by O'Donnell is termed a positional conflict of interest. It arises when two or more clients have opposing interests in unrelated matters. Positional conflicts of interests are addressed indirectly in Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7. Rule 1.7(b) provides in part that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibility to another client.... [1] The Comment to Rule 1.7 states that: A lawyer may represent parties having antagonistic positions on a legal question that has arisen in different cases, unless representation of either client would be adversely affected. Thus it is ordinarily not improper to assert such positions in cases pending in different trial courts, but it may be improper to do so in cases pending at the same time in an appellate court. [2] The distinction between presenting conflicting positions to different trial courts, as opposed to the same appellate court, appears to be based on the assumptions that a trial court's legal rulings are of significance only in the instant case, whereas appellate decisions make law of general application. [3] The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, however, has repudiated the distinction made in the Comment to Rule 1.7 between trial and appellate courts. [4] The Committee stated that in cases pending in different trial courts, and even in different jurisdictions, lawyers must carefully consider whether there is a positional conflict of interest between two or more clients. In determining whether a positional conflict requires a lawyer's disqualification, the question is whether the lawyer can effectively argue both sides of the same legal question without compromising the interests of one client or the other. The lawyer must attempt to strike a balance between the duty to advocate any viable interpretation of the law for one client's benefit versus the other client's right to insist on counsel's fidelity to their legal position. [5] Under the circumstances presented in Williams' case, we find that O'Donnell has identified and demonstrated the existence of a disqualifying positional conflict. It would be a violation of the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct for O'Donnell to advocate conflicting legal positions in two capital murder appeals that are pending simultaneously in this Court. Both the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution guarantee each of O'Donnell's clients a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal following a capital murder conviction. Given his clients' disparate legal arguments, O'Donnell's independent obligations to his clients may compromise the effectiveness of his assistance as appellate counsel for one or both clients, unless his motion to withdraw is granted.