Saturday, March 10, 2007

CAAFlog Talk . . . with Linda Richman

Yes, it's the return of CAAFlog Talk. I'm going to be on the road for a while and will probably have only limited opportunities to post comments. But fear not! When the Kabul Klipper deploys shortly to Kuwait and the Afghanistan, CAAFlog will have contributors on three continents -- and in the afterlife (hi, Guert!). I'm sure they will keep you informed and entertained in my absence.

While I'm gone, here's an issue to discuss. As we all know, each of the military services has opted out of ABA Model Rule 1.10's imputed disqualification standard. For example, here is the relevant portion of Army Rule of Professional Conduct for Lawyers 1.10: "(a) Army lawyers working in the same Army law office are not automatically disqualified from representing a client because any of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9 or 2.2." But just because services allow lawyers with imputed disqualifications to work in the same office doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea.

Here's the discussion topic: should the various services agree that where an appellate defense division receives two cases that would implicate the imputed disqualification rule for a civilian law firm, the appellate defense division will transfer one of the cases to another service's appellate defense division? Good idea? Bad idea? Highly improbable to be adopted idea? What do you all think?


bo man said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No Man said...

The answer to this one is right in my wheelhouse, not only No, but hell No! I think the more important question is trial level representation where actual conflicts are not only possible, but common. What I cannot understand is why service legal assistance shops will send their conflict clients to another service, but not their conflict criminal defense clients. Someone give me the logic there? Until the heads of service defense commands embrace the idea, which there is no evidence I can see of that happening, the appellate issue is one tap away from the triple tap theory.