 |
My former boyfriend is being charged with telecommunication harassment since he was warned by the police to have zero communication with me and he didn't listen to that warning. He had his arraignment today and a pre-trail hearing date has been set. He has hired my new boyfriends divorce attorney. Is this a conflict of interest?
Are your former boyfriend's interests materially adverse to the interests of the current boyfriend? By "interests, I mean more than what he finds to be "interesting"; financial or relational, for example. If so, current BF would have to consent to his former attorney representing former boyfriend.
I'm not sure what you mean? The former x won't leave me alone & is threatening me. His attorney is my new boyfriends divorce attorney. Divorced a little over a year ago. His interest is ME.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer
Why would it be, your new boyfriend is not the one being harassed ? And it has nothing to do with new boyfriends divorce case.
Not sure how wise it is, to use a civil attorney, one that does divorces, as a criminal attorney.
If the new boyfriends divorce was still taking place and new boyfriend was part of protection order then perhaps.
Why does it matter to you ? But yyou can complain to the DA if you wish
Is your current boyfriend likely to be testifying against your old boyfriend at the trial? If so, yes, I would say there is a conflict of interest.
How do you figure? Most competent attorneys are quite capable of doing both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Does your current boyfriend have a relationship with his former attorney other than due to the divorce? If not, then I see no conflict.
In this day of specialization in law a divorce attorney may not be the best choice to handle a criminal case. But its up to your ex to choose his own attorney.
However, you might make a case that his choice was made specifically to further harass you.
Then let me spell out for you a potential scenario:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
XBF is on trial for harassment, etc. State calls CBF, who testifies that XBF called OP, threatened her, and she seemed upset. XBF's attorney (who was CBF's attorney), cross examines CBF, asking "Isn't it true that [fill in the blank with details attorney learned from representing CBF]?
Clearly a conflict.
And, if XBF's attorney posed such a question, the prosecutor would immediately object and the judge would admonish XBFs attorney.
And XBF's attorney would know better than to ask such a question. I still don't see enough of a conflict to get the attorney replaced.
XBF has the right to a vigorous defense. As part of his defense, he has the right to ask such a question (unless perhaps it is immaterial or unduly prejudicial? You have not hinted at the gounds for such a hypothetical objection to a hypothetical question, so I cannot even guess.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
If XBF has a need to ask such a question, but cannot because of his attorney's conflict of interest, obviously the conflict is not trivial. The rules on conflict of interest are clear: the conflict is not ignored because if it's not "enough of a conflict".
If the objection would be that the defense attorney is using confidential information from an ex-client, you are using circular reasoning. If that is the ground for your objection, there would definitely be a conflict of interest.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM. |