1.10:200 IMPUTED DISQUALIFICATION AMONG CURRENTLY AFFILIATED LAWYERS

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

1.10:200 Imputed Disqualification Among Currently Affiliated Lawyers

When lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them may knowingly represent a client when any of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so due to a conflict of interest, unless the affected client gives informed consent. ER 1.10(a), (c); In re Estate of Fogleman, 197 Ariz. 252, 258-59, 3 P.3d 1172, 1178-79 (App. 2000); In re Murphy, 188 Ariz. 375, 379, 936 P.2d 1269, 1273 (1997); State v. Hansen, 146 Ariz. 226, 231-32, 705 P.2d 466, 471-72 (App. 1985).

Thus, in Okeani v. Superior Court, 178 Ariz. 180, 181, 871 P.2d 727, 728 (App. 1993), the court determined that the public defender's office's representation of a criminal defendant was "directly adverse" to its simultaneous representation of the alleged victim on an unrelated matter, because one of its duties might include attempting to impeach the credibility of the victim as a witness. The court went on to note that the conflict would not be alleviated if the defendant and the victim were represented by different lawyers in the office because, under ER 1.10(a), while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them can knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by ER 1.7. Id. at 182, 871 P.2d at 729.

Similarly, in Arizona Ethics Opinion No. 89-08, the Committee concluded that, when the head of an "alternative" public defender's office becomes the director of the official Public Defender's Office, attorneys in the Public Defender's Office are precluded from representing defendants in cases that are the same or substantially related to cases handled by attorneys in the "alternative" public defender's office during the moving attorney's tenure there, if: (1) the defendants represented by the Public Defender's Office have materially adverse interests to those represented by the "alternative" public defender's office; and (2) the moving attorney acquired material confidential information concerning their cases. The Committee has also concluded that a public defender must withdraw from the representation of a criminal defendant who has a "colorable" claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against another member of the office. Ariz. Ethics Op. No. 96-03.

The same rule has also been applied to private practitioners with a criminal-defense practice. In Arizona Ethics Opinion No. 91-05, the Committee concluded that, when a lawyer plans to represent a client in a criminal...