Representing co-defendants is generally a conflict of interest. However, if both people agree to waive the conflict, there are some circumstances where the same attorney can represent both. It is advisable to get independent legal advice on whether you should even waive the conflict.
It is never a good idea to have one attorney for more than one defendant in a case. However, it is possible if both defendants sign a statement outlining the possible conflicts and agreeing to one attorney representing both. Most competent attorneys will not represent two defendants in the same case.
In that case (which does not appear to have been the subject of an appeal), the Judge decided that a Default Judgment against one Defendant did not prevent his co-Defendant continuing to defend a case.
It would be wrong to prevent the co-Defendant from putting forward his defence as the principles of Res Judicata (re-litigating previously decided matters) should not apply where there had been no determination of the facts of the case.
Co-defendants are generally not allowed to have the same lawyer. The State may want one of you to offer testimony against the other. Or they may try and use statements that one of you made to police against both of you. There could also be an issue of separate trials or your case being tried together.
Can a criminal defense lawyer represent co-defendants who may be charged in the commission of the same crime or series of crimes? The answer is a qualified, “Yes,” provided that there are no conflicts between the defendants that require the attorney to choose which client to more vigorously represent.
Rule 1.7(a) provides that a lawyer can only represent multiple clients who are directly adverse to one another if all of the clients provide their informed written consent.
Rule 1. (a) A lawyer shall not represent opposing parties to the same litigation. (2) reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the lawyer's or law firm's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer's or laws firm's won interests.
For preferred supplier private law practices, different lawyers in the same practice can represent co-defendants with the approval of an External Review Officer.
The California Rules generally permit a lawyer to represent multiple clients with conflicting interests so long as all the clients have provided their informed written consent.
(a) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter.
Most lawyers practice civil law because it is more lucrative, they have higher prestige, and have fewer problems dealing with clients.
Yes you can hire two advocates at the same time. I have hired 5 advocates at the same time as well. You can take my help in finding a good arguing counsel. Unless NOC is taken from the previous lawyer new lawyer cannot be appointed.
[11] When lawyers representing different clients in the same matter or in substantially related matters are closely related by blood or marriage, there may be a significant risk that client confidences will be revealed and that the lawyer's family relationship will interfere with both loyalty and independent ...
The SRA have issued new guidance on when a firm can act for both buyer and seller in a conveyancing transaction. To achieve Outcome 3.5 of the Code, you must not act for two or more clients in a related matter if there is a conflict, or a significant risk of a conflict, between the interests of those clients.
Under the Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests.
When co-defendants have antagonistic or conflicting defenses and these positions make a joint trial unfair, the Court should deny a motion to join even if the joinder is allowable by statute. State v. Lowery
Constitutional, statutory, and case law requirements impose a duty on the prosecutor to inform defendants of plea agreements with testifying co-defendants, and allow defendants to cross-examine testifying co-defendants about the terms of the plea agreements.
N.C.R.Evid. 804(b)(3): “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: . . . (3) Statement Against Interest. – A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible in a criminal case unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” tate v. Wilson
In State v. Galloway, 145 N.C.App. 555 (2001), the victim testified that she was forced into the vehicle with the defendant and his testifying co-defendant and then forced to perform oral sex; the co-defendant testified that the victim voluntarily got into the car to perform acts of prostitution, but later the defendant held a gun to the victim’s head. The defendant contended that as one of these versions had to be false, the State had knowingly offered perjured testimony and his due process rights were thus violated. The court found no violation: “A prosecutor's presentation of known false evidence, allowed to go uncorrected, is a violation of a defendant's right to due process. The State has a duty to correct any false evidence which in any reasonable likelihood could affect the jury's decision. However, if the evidence is inconsistent or contradictory, rather than a knowing falsehood, such contradictions in the State's evidence are for the jury to consider and resolve.” See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); State v. Williams,
In State v. Letterlough, 53 N.C.App. 693 (1981), the prosecutor asked the testifying co-defendant how he met the defendant; the witness answered that he met the defendant when he (the witness) was “on the chain gang.” The Court acknowledged that “unless the accused produces evidence of good character to repel the charges against him, the State may not introduce evidence of defendant's bad character,” but noted that evidence relevant for some purpose other than proving character may be introduced although it incidentally bears on defendant's character. In this case, it was not error to admit this evidence because it was relevant to establish the existence of a relationship which would make plausible defendant's coming to the witness for help to bury the body.
43 (1996), the defendant sought to call co-defendant Cashwell’s attorney to ask about the advantages of the plea agreement Cashwell had with the State. The attorney asserted Cashwell’s attorney-client privilege, and the trial court did not allow the defense to ask these questions. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting this testimony, since Cashwell had testified in some detail about the nature and extent of her plea agreement with the State.
Generally speaking, testimony about a witness’s drug or alcohol use is not relevant, unless the substance was consumed near the time of the events about which the witness is testifying.
If two people were fighting with each other than one attorney cannot represent both. It would be considered a conflict . The attorney could not effectively represent one individual without jeopardizing the interest of the other individual. If the two individuals were fighting others, an attorney may be able to represent both (although not recommended); however, the two clients would have to be on equal footing in all respects. For example, they could not be able to claim that the other was more culpable or that the other stated the fight. Basically they must be able to raise defenses that apply equally to both.
Technically yes, but usually not a good idea. Conflicts usually arise when assessing levels of culpability, among a variety of other issues. Although perhaps more cost effective, it's best for each party to have separate representation.
Representing co-defendants is generally a conflict of interest. However, if both people agree to waive the conflict, there are some circumstances where the same attorney can represent both. It is advisable to get independent legal advice on whether you should even waive the conflict.
Yes, it's possible, but not preferable. The reason is there is an incipient conflict of interest between the two people who were arrested; meaning that in many instances either one may blame the other for the injury or damages done. While that may be the actual case, the fact is that when you only have one attorney between two people and they are blaming each other at any point in the proceedings, which client does the attorney choose to represent at which point in time? That is where the conflict arises. Of course, the parties may sign waivers of the conflict of interest, but then again, what happens when another unforeseen conflict arises later? Therefore, it is always best to have only one attorney represent one Defendant at a time. Good luck.
Ordinarily, each person would have their own attorney, since they each would have different legal defenses possible. If, for some reason, they either have the same defense and/or waive any conflict of interest, then the same attorney can represent both. It really depends on the facts of the case and what the level of conflict is.
Not a good idea. Both of the accused must sign written waivers acknowledging that they may have a conflict of interest and that representation by one lawyer could hurt their cases.
Can represent both people as long as there is not a "conflict of interests". The better practice is for the attorney to get each person's permission after explaining that there may be conflicts in each of their defenses, etc. You probably need to furnish more information in order to get an accurate answer. Report Abuse.
Defendants have the right counsel and the right to conflict free counsel. When two or more defendants are charged in the same criminal complaint or indictment there arises the possibility that their individual defenses are hostile or in conflict to the other...
Defendants have the right counsel and the right to conflict free counsel. When two or more defendants are charged in the same criminal complaint or indictment there arises the possibility that their individual defenses are hostile or in conflict to the other... 1 found this answer helpful. found this helpful.
In Glasser five defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud the government. Glasser had retained a Mr. Stewart as his counsel. Before trial one of the codefendants, Kretske, dismissed his counsel and the court appointed Stewart to represent Kretske with- out objection from Glasser.
Respondent should have withdrawn immediately as Padgett's counsel; and if he had received privileged communication from Padgett that might have been used to Ray's advantage and to Padgett's disadvan- tage, he should have withdrawn as counsel for both parties . . . .
For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others.
[8] Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.
The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.
General Principles. [1] Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer's relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or from the lawyer's own interests. For specific Rules regarding certain concurrent conflicts ...
[21] A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer's representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client's own representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, whether the client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the reasonable expectations of the other client and whether material detriment to the other clients or the lawyer would result.
[14] Ordinarily, clients may consent to representation notwithstanding a conflict. However, as indicated in paragraph (b), some conflicts are nonconsentable, meaning that the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client's consent. When the lawyer is representing more than one client, the question of consentability must be resolved as to each client.
Personal Interest Conflicts. [10] The lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.