伦理意见232

多客户/刑事事务

*[注:参见 意见232 受到《澳博app下载网》修订的实质影响.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《澳博app下载网》

在充分披露并征得客户同意后, a lawyer may represent a witness in a criminal matter who desires to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify even though a suspect in the criminal matter is being represented in another matter by the same firm. 澳博app可能不会, 然而, bargain with the government to obtain a benefit by giving testimony adverse to the firm’s client without obtaining the consent of both clients and otherwise complying with 规则1.7(c).

适用的规则

• 1.7(b)(利益冲突)
• 1.10(a)(推定取消资格)
• 1.16 (a)(退出)
• 4.2(a)(与在事项中由其他澳博app代表的人联系)

调查

委员会被要求决定澳博app是否可以在刑事杀人案中代表证人, 当询问者的合伙人代表客户一时, 谁是这起谋杀案的主要嫌疑人, 与两项无关的非法持有武器指控有关. 第一客户在谋杀案中由其他澳博app代理. 我们被告知询问者的客户, 客户两个, 死者和另外三个人坐在一辆车里, 包括客户端1, 当受害者下车时, 被车追了, 最终被车里的人杀死.

客户二最初是在凶杀案中被起诉的, 但对他的指控在最初的听证会上被驳回. The inquirer states that the government has decided not to charge 客户两个 because he was an innocent bystander in a murder planned and executed by client one and others. 在他被捕的时候, 在2号客户有澳博app代理之前, 他向警方做了供词，证明一号当事人有罪. The inquirer and the prosecutor state that the prosecutor would like to call 客户两个 to the grand jury to give testimony against client one. 除非给予豁免，否则客户二不会出庭作证即便如此也不会合作.

询问者说，他向客户2及其家人解释了他的合伙人代表客户1的情况, 尽管存在潜在的冲突，但双方都希望继续调查. 除了, the inquirer informed the prosecutor of the potential conflict and has kept the fee received from 客户两个 in escrow pending resolution of this matter. 询问者的合伙人未与客户1沟通, 在一段时间内，谁在杀人案和其他不相关的案件中由其他澳博app代理. 询问者声明他和他的合伙人不会分享他们各自客户的信息, 这份陈述已经提交给了检察官和法院.

The inquirer asks three questions: (1) is there a per se conflict of interest which precludes representation of 客户两个; (2) should the inquirer withdraw from the representation of 客户两个 and, 如果是这样的话, must his partner withdraw from further representation of client one; and (3) how should client one be contacted for his objection or consent to the inquirer’s representation of 客户两个?

分析

1. 取消客户二的代理资格
规则1.第10(a)条 哥伦比亚特区职业行为规则 禁止与公司有关联的澳博app代表客户(如果公司内有澳博app), 一个人练习, 会被规则1禁止代表双方当事人吗.7, 1.8(b), 1.9, or 2.2. 分析询问者是否有禁止冲突, 因此, 询问者和他的搭档必须被视为一体.¹ 见规则1.10(a); Comment [17] to 规则1.7.

规则1.第7(a)条造成不可同意的冲突，当澳博app(或根据规则1).第10(a)条(一家澳博app事务所)寻求代表在同一“事件”中持相反立场的两个客户.规则1.7(b) creates four consentable conflicts in defined circumstances in which multiple representation may infringe a lawyer’s duties of loyalty and zealous representation. 规则1.7(a)和1.7(b)(1) each deal with the situation in which a position to be taken for one client is adverse to a position to be taken for another client “in the same matter.“它们的不同之处在于，根据规则1，这种冲突通常是可以同意的.(c)如果第二个客户由不同的澳博app或事务所代理.² 由于第一客户在谋杀案中由单独的澳博app代表，只有规则1.7(b)(1)适用于此.

应用规则1.7(b)(1)要求考虑客户二的代表是否, 谁现在被排除在谋杀案之外了, with respect to his grand jury testimony is (1) adverse to client one and (2) occurs in “the same matter” as the criminal trial against client one.³ 关于第一个问题, 询问者声明，客户2没有豁免权将不作证(届时也可以不作证)。. 另外，客户二显然不想为了获得豁免权而与检方讨价还价. 既然客户二援引第五修正案权利的决定并不对客户一不利, 目前看来不存在规则1规定的不利利益.7(b)(1).

在刑事案件中总是有很大的风险, 然而, 随着检察官收集证据，这种立场可能会改变, 从目标中筛选目击者, 并选择潜在电荷.⁴ 认识到这, we note that should 客户两个 later decide that it is in his interest to bargain his testimony against client one for some advantage, then there would be sufficient adversity between 客户两个 and client one to require disqualification of the inquirer and his firm, 没有根据规则1的同意.7(c)，如果这种讨价还价将发生在“同一事项上”.”

“物质”一词在规则中没有精确定义. 在“公开的对手程序”之外,“物质”的界限变得难以辨别. 看到 将[3]注释到规则1.7. 给“物质”概念的界限应该, 我们相信, 获悉规则1所要达到的目的.7. 将[3]注释到规则1.7 implies that the problem to be avoided under the Rule is “seeking a result to which another client is opposed” from the same decision maker. 看到id. 相应的, where counsel seeks to gain an advantage for one client by offering to trade testimony inculpating a second client in the same criminal episode, 这种讨价还价寻求, 或者至少有助于, 这是(第二个)客户反对的结果,，这种讨价还价应被视为发生在双方客户共同的“事情”上. 这种讨价还价应该发生吗, 因此, the inquirer and his firm would be disqualified from representing 客户两个 absent the consent of both clients one and two under 规则1.7(c).⁵

规则1.第7(b)(2)款也与本调查的事实有关. That rule prohibits representation of a client when such “representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client.“当一个澳博app代表多个客户时，这些客户可能会在同一犯罪事件中相互灌输, the government has frequently moved for disqualification on the ground that such representation creates two distinct conflicts. 第一个, the lawyer’s concern for one client may lead him to counsel a second to refuse to testify in circumstances where such refusal is not warranted by the Fifth Amendment (or otherwise) and may cause the second client to be held in contempt.⁶ 第二个, 在这种情况下，澳博app没有资格为他的任何一个客户讨价还价, 这可能不利于客户的最佳利益，他们可以通过向他人灌输来为自己开脱.⁷ 尽管我们被告知这里的情况并非如此, 可以认为询问者的公司有保护客户1的利益, 尽管他们在谋杀案中不代表他, 这会导致他们建议客户二不要与检察官合作从而损害客户二的利益.

在任何情况下，询问者都不会根据规则1被取消资格.7(b)(2)只要询问者能根据规则1取得客户2的同意.7(c). While the inquirer states that he has spoken with 客户两个 and his family about the multiple representation situation and they still wish to go forward with the inquirer, 调查不清楚是否完全遵守了规则1.7(c). 规则1.7(c)要求充分披露多重代表可能产生的不利后果. 看,e.g., 意见217 (1991). 特别是, 询问者应告知客户二，如果情况发生变化, the inquirer could be disqualified from continuing the representation unless client one gives consent as required by 规则1.7(c).

2. 撤军
询问者和他的公司目前还没有被取消同时代理客户二和客户一的资格, 不需要退出任何一方的代表. 情况是否应该改变，以符合规则1.7(b)(1)开始发挥作用，并根据规则1同意.7(c)不能同时从客户2和客户1获得, 然后询问者将不得不退出客户二的代理. 看到 规则1.16(a). 即使询问者退出客户二的代理, we do not see any reason for the inquirer’s partner to withdraw from the representation of client one in the unrelated weapons possession cases.⁸

3. 联系客户一
如果询问者决定征求客户一对客户二的代表的同意, 在杀人案中，询问者应该通过当事人的澳博app寻求当事人的同意. 如上所述, 在客户二和客户一的利益可能相悖的情况下, 客户二和客户一应被视为同一“事件”的当事人.规则四.2(a),⁹ 因此, prohibits contact with client one on 客户两个’s behalf except through counsel representing client one in the homicide matter.¹⁰

调查没有. 92-9-31
通过:1992年10月20日

1. 询问者和他的合伙人同意不分享与他们各自客户有关的信息. 然而, 这种“道德墙”只被我们的上诉法院口头讨论过一次, 以及任何认为这样一堵墙将减轻规则1所述严格推定的取消资格的推论.法院在颁布对规则1的评论[15]时删除了第10(a)款.10(a). 因此, “道德墙”的存在并不能消除规则1所提出的推定取消资格的障碍.10(a).
2. 如果澳博app不能遵守其他适用的规则，委托人的同意无效. 见规则1.17(c)(2); see generally 意见217 (1991).
3. The weapons possession charges against client one are clearly not the same matter as the murder charges at issue here.
4. 例如, the prosecutor has written the Committee that “it may be necessary to negotiate with [客户两个] regarding immunity and other sensitive issues.” This suggests that the prosecutor has not made a final decision on whether to grant immunity to 客户两个 or whether to charge him with some crime.
5. 即使得到同意，规则1.7(c)(2) requires withdrawal unless counsel can “comply with all other applicable rules with respect to such representation.“根据向委员会提供的事实, 我们没有看到“其他适用规则”会被提议的陈述所违反.
6. 例如，参见United States v. Dowdy, 440华氏度. 增刊. 894 (W.D. Va. 1977)和在调查大陪审团程序，432 F. 增刊. 50 (W.D. Va. 1977).
7. 参见脚注6中引用的案例.
8. 这不是, 例如, a situation in which confidences of 客户两个 would be used or revealed in the defense of client one on the weapons charges.
9. 本规则规定:
在代理客户的过程中, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter.
10. 而规则4.第2(a)条提到事项的“各方”, 它也适用于与“任何人”的接触, 是否是正式诉讼的一方, 谁有澳博app代表他处理有关事宜.对规则4的评论[4].2.