Court Opinion

ID: 9758861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:53:02.242182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:56.974986
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I join Mr. Justice Nix's dissenting opinion and agree that the majority incorrectly decides the merits of the issues presented. However, in my view, this controversy may well be resolved without necessarily reaching the merits of the substantive issues.
Respondents, Attorneys Franck and Stewart—counsel for a special judicial investigation—have no standing to challenge Attorney Kremer’s right to represent and advise his client, Mr. Frohlich. If respondents assert professional impropriety by Mr. Kremer, that becomes a matter for the Disciplinary Board which has the power and duty to “consider and investigate the conduct of any attorney. . . .” Rule 17-5 (c) (1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In the present circumstances respondents are not entitled to interrupt the ongoing investigation of attorney X-l by interposing, as a collateral matter, their assertion of allegedly improper conduct by Mr. Kremer.
*39In our adversary system of jurisprudence, one litigant may not reject or disqualify another person’s counsel. Manifestly, nothing could be more offensive to the integrity of a judicial proceeding than affording one party the voice to remove his adversary’s lawyer. Such a collateral course of controversy—-if permitted—could only serve to unnecessarily delay and burden the primary purpose of the proceedings—without in any way advancing its legitimate objectives or the quality of the inquiry.
It was an obvious abuse of discretion for the court to entertain respondents’ motion to disqualify Mr. Krerner and prejudicial error to order such disqualification.
I dissent.
Mr. Justice Mandeeino joins in this dissenting opinion.