NCJ Number
66490
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Dated: (WINTER 1980) Pages: 301-339
Date Published
1980
Length
39 pages
Annotation
FACTORS THAT COUNSEL SHOULD CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHETHER TO UNDERTAKE MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION AT THE GRAND JURY STAGE ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING STRATEGY, ETHICS, AND THE DOCTRINAL GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
Abstract
THE PROPRIETY OF ONE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING SEVERAL CLIENTS WHOSE CONDUCT IS UNDER INVESIGATION BY A GRAND JURY HAS BEEN EXPLORED ONLY SUPERFICIALLY BY THE COURTS AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. PROSECUTORS, NONETHELESS, HAVE OFTEN MOVED TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL REPRESENTING MULTIPLE CLIENTS, BASING THEIR MOTIONS ON THE CLIENT'S INTEREST IN LOYAL AND COMPETENT REPRESENTATION AND ON THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN THE UNIMPEDED PROGRESS OF THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF NOT LIMITING ATTORNEY-CLIENT SELECTION AND STRATEGY. PRUDENT COUNSEL, HOWEVER, NO MATTER HOW SKILLED, SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION UNLESS DICTATED BY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE RISKS ARE TOO GREAT FOR CLIENTS. THE WAIVER HEARING MAY DAMAGE THE CLIENTS, AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFLICTS MAY CRIPPLE REPRESENTATION. IF MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION IS ASSUMED, THE INVOLVED ATTORNEY SHOULD WITHDRAW AT THE FIRST SIGN OF CONFLICT, BECAUSE EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE CONFLICT WILL ONLY GROW WITH CONTINUED REPRESENTATION, DIVIDING COUNSEL FROM CLIENTS AND THE CLIENTS FROM EACH OTHER. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--RCB)