道德意见237

Conflict of Interests: Previous Representation of Witness in Unrelated Matter

An attorney may represent a defendant in a criminal case, even though another attorney in his or her office formerly represented an individual who is now a witness in that case if (1) the agency’s representation of the person who is the witness was in an unrelated case; (2) the attorney involved in the current case does not actually possess any confidences or secrets of the former client; and (3) the agency takes adequate steps to screen that attorney from any such confidences and secrets.

适用的规则

•   规则1.6 (Confidentiality of Information)
•   规则1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule)
•   规则1.9 (Conflict of Interest: Former Client)
•   规则1.10(推定不合格)

调查

公设辩护人服务(PDS)要求就以下情况下其澳博app的责任发表意见:PDS澳博app1代表客户1, who was a defendant in a Burglary case. 此案现已结案. PDS Attorney #2 is appointed to represent Client #2 in a separate Assault case. Attorney #2 discovers that Client #1 is the complainant or an essential government witness. 2号澳博app通过与1号澳博app(e)的讨论之外的方式了解到这种可能的冲突.g., by checking the court file or from discussions with the U.S. 澳博app或证人).

PDS has represented that if Attorney #2 is allowed to continue to represent Client #2, 它将通过阻止澳博app2接触客户1的文件和与澳博app1讨论案件来屏蔽澳博app2获取关于客户1的任何信息.

讨论

The Public Defender Service’s inquiry raises the issues of: (1) whether there is a conflict of interest between the representation of the former client and the new client; and (2) the extent to which an attorney representing a new client will be subject to imputed disqualification because another attorney in the same office represented the former client.

Since the inquiry presumes the involvement of two attorneys, the analysis of the issues raised must begin with an understanding of the requirements of 规则1.10. 在一般情况下, 这条规则禁止“事务所”中的一名澳博app承担任何其他成员可能被取消资格的事务. 规则1的评注.10 states that the term “firm” encompasses legal services agencies. 看到 评论1.¹ Assuming that the attorneys at PDS are the equivalent of “lawyers [who] are associated in a firm,规则1.第10条(a)款规定，代理机构的任何澳博app“都不得在规则1禁止单独执业的情况下故意代理客户”.7, 1.8(b), 1.9, or 2.3.”

因为本案的问题在于前客户是否存在利益冲突, 规则1.9应用. 本规则规定:

曾在某一事项中代表客户的澳博app，此后不得在同一事项或实质性相关事项中代表另一人，如果该人的利益与前客户的利益有重大不利关系，除非前客户在咨询后同意.

因此, 如果2号澳博app的案件与1号澳博app代表1号客户的案件“相同”或“实质相关”，则2号澳博app不能代表2号客户. Under the facts set forth by PDS here, 然而, the representation of Client #1 was in Client #1’s own case—not as a participant in case #2. These two representations are clearly not in the “same matter.”² 

更困难的问题是，这两项陈述是否涉及“实质相关”的事项. The 规则 do not define “substantially related,” other than to note that 规则1.9 was “intended to incorporate federal case law” that defines the term. 规则1.9、评论2. For guidance, the commentary points to T.C. 剧院公司. v. 华纳兄弟电影公司., 113 F. 增刊. 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1953), 等于off会, 216 F.[au:] [au:. 1954年)，以及“它的后代”.”

The difficulty with this direction, 然而, is that the definition provided by this case law is still uncertain.

In 布朗诉. District of Columbia 董事会 of Zoning Adjustment, 486 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1984), 上诉法院指出，“用于确定两个事项是否有实质性联系”的方法首先是对要确定的事实和法律问题进行分析, 首先, whether the factual contexts of the two matters overlap. If they do, further analysis is required. 486 A.2d在49; 看到 也 西屋电气公司. v. 海湾石油公司., 588 F.2d 221, 225(第7卷. 1978).

在PDS公布的事实中, the subject matter of the two representations are not the same or substantially related. 因此，根据规则1.9, Attorney #2 should be able to continue to represent Client #2.

即使规则1.9满足规则1.如果澳博app2的代理违反了客户1的任何机密或秘密，6可以禁止客户2的后续代理. 规则1.第6条禁止澳博app故意“泄露澳博app客户的机密或秘密，使其客户处于不利地位” . . . [or] for the advantage of the lawyer or of [another].”

根据事实, 很可能, Attorney #1 possesses confidences or secrets of Client #1 that might be helpful to Client #2, but Attorney #2 does not personally possess such information. Unlike the proscriptions of 规则1.9、规则1.10 does not impute a disqualification to Attorney #2 based on 规则1.6.
对规则1的注释11.第10条解释说，保密的关键在于是否有“获取”某一特定客户信息的渠道. This issue, in turn, depends on the “fact[s] in particular circumstances.评论指出，一些澳博app可以查阅律所所有客户的档案, 有些则不然. It concludes that “in the absence of information to the contrary, 可以推断，这样的澳博app实际上对实际服务的客户的信息是知情的，而不是对其他客户的信息.” 参见棕色（的）, 486 A.2d在42处，n. 5.

在这种情况下, 2号澳博app未收到1号澳博app的任何机密信息或1号客户的机密文件. 公设辩护人服务处表示，当其澳博app得知过去的客户可能是对当前客户不利的证人时, 一名澳博app主管将保管过去客户的文件，并把它们锁在一个上锁的文件柜里，这是2号澳博app无法进入的. 1号澳博app和2号澳博app都被告知，他们不得相互或在对方在场的情况下讨论他们的案件或客户. These efforts are consistent with the proscriptions of ABA Formal Opinion 342 (1975) and 棕色（的）, 486 A.2d at 42. 因此，规则1.2号澳博app实际上并没有获得机密信息，也不会接触到机密信息，因此不会被取消资格.

符合规则1.4, 客户2应被告知PDS在早些时候曾代表证人反对他的事实，以及澳博app2使用客户1的任何机密或办公室可能拥有的秘密的能力的限制.³

调查没有. 91-6-28
一九九二年十一月十七日

1. 尽管《澳博app下载网》也指出，“澳博app是否应被视为相互关联，可取决于所涉及的具体规则, and on the specific facts of the situation” (看到 Comment 3), in the circumstances presented in this case, the result will be the same whether or not the Public Defender Service is treated as a “firm.”
2. 很明显, 澳博app不能代表客户2，如果他或她在袭击案中以证人的身份代表客户1. 见意见No. 232.
3. 在公设辩护人试图弹劾前客户的过程中，可能会有一些人发现“表面上的不当行为”. This standard is no longer found in the 职业行为准则. Rather, the 规则 specify what conduct is allowed and what is not. 此外, even if this standard still existed, it is “too slender a reed” to require disqualification.美国v. 法官，625 F. 增刊. 901, 903 (D. 夏威夷1986).