Court Opinion

ID: 9464842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:44:31.158048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:51.013720
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the court, and would remand the case for further consideration by the district court.
Appellee’s initial action in the case was taken on November 17, 1977 in the course of the non-jury trial of the defendant Arthur Lewis Gordon, and was formalized in a Memorandum and Order filed on November 21, 1977. Appellant was directed to repay to Gordon $400.00 of the $500.00 which appellant had received from Gordon.
On November 28, 1977 appellant Coffelt filed a motion to vacate the district court’s order of November 21 and the motion recited that between November 21 and November 28, the state charges against the informant Willie Jackson had been dismissed, that there was no longer any conflict of interest involved in Coffelt’s representation of Gordon, that Mrs. Coffelt had been relieved of any potential liability on the bail bond of Jackson, and that Gordon had stated to appellee that he desired to have Cof-felt continue to serve as his attorney.
The district court summarily overruled the motion, and on the next day appointed new counsel to represent Gordon.
I recognize that the subsequent conviction of Gordon as a result of his second trial may have rendered moot the question of the correctness of the order of Judge Shell disqualifying Mr. Coffelt from further representation of Gordon. That, however, is not necessarily true. But, apart from that the controversy about Coffelt’s fee is not moot.
In general, I do not disagree with the legal principles and authorities relied upon by the majority. I think, however, that in view of Gordon’s expressed desire to have Coffelt continue to represent him, and in view of the fact that the state charges against Jackson were dismissed between November 21 and November 28 the district court should have given more consideration than it did to Mr. Coffelt’s motion to vacate, and that the district court should now take another look at the matter and particularly at the question of whether Mr. Cof-felt should be permitted to retain at least the $500.00 that he had received initially from Gordon.