ÿWPCDH qóÜÚ“¯Îª>F'°w.…žàN6EÇ2š6²6üWy:rCüžá¡æ…&þJªEkœ›BrÒºº[kYÿI¿ïRr 'Šâ¥ùm“¶FçÌÉß°÷d¨ˆ.õLߢ´87–HOê…\]XKÂQá'Lg‹Í“|F‰ ä´ÛKp÷§¬˜Ò6fÐdÁï!§b# »_?õÿKql¸¶€çgè+ ÿRвžþí.n¶! ³Íô±Ëãˆ:‘Eu^ \— Žâµ :f%X“¼}§¸ø FÚ€UîÚªÜŒŽ·©–z¡³ò‡uÚpUÖë>Ygûa¸]Ô5ª ¹‰üÅÕ½çãŇþžÂaÒ_¾RjÒ´d¹7-šJyR¹]jûƤ ¡®A¨JÄ3?ÕÙÒNËHßíÉÛ!â®`\.ôG7›ØxN<ohòQ~K@µ¡³Ji A×b°C˜z{¦Ý’³­Áw%‚.¦ÆökÊg×ë4ÅÇØ8q…Q]Åîê»–õ}1_,#“Ž÷¸Ã¬¤ÄPõrÓ«Þ77hÚàŒJ¬}ÁeË×!4šÖF"$yEuN+ÏmÑ‹‚Ïî¤"æ !Í/ºíc!G[›ûxô»1>³X#ÉÐU?N™ %ç 0Yí ^ F wR 4V j y m{ N’ Q” 0å 0D‚ ŸÆ °ep!…û¦p¡1B!ˆE"5Í#W(àY*Ï9+à.Øè.`À0µ 4Õ7Rí;í;í;\?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>0›@ 4Ë@Èÿ@ 6ÇAýAC¾1DïDF¾G 0NÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙGÙG B'H˜CENTRAL OFFICEÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1”Ê$¡¡Ô€ŠÝOˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôàp6— OV.6AT\WP3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ GÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€òòÔ_ÔMcKaneÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔDurstanÔ_Ôóó,€153€U.S.€684€(1894);€òòJones€v.€Barnes,€óó463€U.S.€745€(1983).òò€óó(M(3‘Å$¤¤Ý ƒ”Ê!ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó •Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔThe€òòGideonóó€court€held€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€is€ð ðso€fundamentalÐ ° Ðand€essential€to€a€fair€trial,€and€so,€to€due€process€of€law,€that€it€is€made€obligatory€upon€theÐ ° ÐStates€by€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.ðð€(372€U.S.€at€340,€citations€and€internal€quote€marksÐ œì Ðomitted;€òòSee€also€Ô_ÔEvittsÔ_Ô€v€Ô_ÔLuceyÔ_Ô€,€óó469€U.S.€388,€395€(1985).)Ð ˆØ Ð ¦Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€òòÔ€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔPowell€v€Alabamaóó,€287€U.S.€45,€53€(1932):€ð ðIt€is€hardly€necessary€to€say€that,€the€rightÐ ° Ðto€counsel€being€conceded,€a€defendant€should€be€afforded€a€fair€opportunity€to€secure€counsel€ofÐ ° Ðhis€own€choice.ðð fÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔòòDouglas€v€California€,óó372€U.S.€353€(1963).€€òòSee€also€Ô_ÔEvittsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLuceyÔ_Ôóó,€469€U.S.€387Ð ° Ð(1985).òòóó Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔAs€discussed€in€Ô_ÔSectionÔ_Ô€I,€above,€under€the€federal€Sixth/Fourteenth€AmendmentÐ ° Ðright,€the€trial€court€has€òòdiscretionóó€to€permit€or€to€disallow€the€counsel€of€choice€where€there€is€aÐ ° Ðconflict€of€interest.€€The€California€courts€have€left€open€the€question€whether€under€theÐ œì ÐCalifornia€constitutional€right€the€trial€court€òòmustóó€permit€the€representation€even€if€there€is€aÐ ˆØ Ðconflict€of€interest€between€the€attorney€and€the€client,€so€long€as€the€client€knowingly€waives€theÐ tÄ Ðconflict. ñÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔòòPeople€v€Jones€óó(2004)€33€Cal.4th€Ô_Ô234Ô_Ô fÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€€€€€We€have€found€three€Circuit€cases€which€touched€upon€the€issue€of€whether€there€is€aÐ ° Ðfederal€Sixth€Amendment/Due€Process€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choice€on€appeal,€but€withoutÐ œì Ðdeciding€it:Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Friedmanóó,€849€F.2d€1488€(D.C.€Cir.€1988)€the€court€noted:Ð tÄ Ðð ðWe€assume,€without€deciding,€that€the€sixth€amendment€right€to€counsel€of€choice,€which€weÐ `° Ðhave€recognized€as€applying€to€choice€of€trial€counsel,€applies€to€a€first€appeal€of€right€as€well.ððÐ L œ Ð(849€F.€2d,€at€1490€n.€5.)€€The€court€did€not€need€to€reach€the€issue,€because€it€concluded€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellant€did€not€have€funds€to€retain€an€attorney.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€an€unpublished€Sixth€Circuit€opinion€(òòCarpenter€v.€Morrisóó€(No.€89„3575,€Aug,.Ð ü L  Ð31€1990)€the€court€did€not€reach€the€issue€because€it€concluded€on€the€facts€that€the€appellant€hadÐ è 8  Ðin€fact€been€granted€the€right€to€retain€an€attorney€of€his€choice.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòMiller€v€Smithóó,€115€F.3d€1136€(D.C.€Cir.€1997)€the€panelððs€majority€did€notÐ ¬ü  Ðreach€the€issue,€since€it€held€that€where€the€appellant€wanted€a€free€transcript€due€to€indigence,€itÐ ˜è  Ðwas€valid€for€the€State€of€Maryland€to€require€that€he€use€the€State€Public€Defenderððs€office€forÐ „Ô  Ðthe€appeal.€The€dissenting€judge€would€have€held€that€there€is€a€constitutional€right€to€retainedÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€of€choice€on€appeal,€and€that€Marylandððs€system€violated€that€right. 'Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€€€òòÔ_ÔEvittsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLuceyÔ_Ôóó,€469€U.S.€387,€396„397€(1985):€ð ðThe€two€lines€of€cases€mentionedð!ðÐ ° Ðthe€cases€recognizing€the€right€to€counsel€on€a€first€appeal€as€of€right€and€the€cases€recognizingÐ œì Ðthat€the€right€to€counsel€at€trial€includes€a€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counselð!ð€are€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_ÔÐ ˆØ Ð....€A€first€appeal€as€of€right€is€not€adjudicated€in€accord€with€due€process€of€law€if€the€appellantÐ tÄ  Ðdoes€not€have€the€effective€assistance€of€an€attorney.ðð ùÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔòòMcMann€v€Ô_ÔRichardsonóó,Ô_Ô€397€U.S.€759€(1970).€€ ~Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€Ô‡X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔòòWheat€v€United€States,óó€486€U.S.€153€(1988);€òòUnited€States€v€GonzalezÔ_Ô„Lopez,Ô_Ô€óó___Ð ° ÐU.S.€___,€126€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€2557,€2561€(2006). +Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€€€The€right€to€conflict„free€representation€is€itself€a€constitutional€right€of€the€clientððsÐ ° Ðunder€the€Sixth€Amendment:€ð ðThe€Sixth€Amendmentððs€right€to€counsel€requires€effectiveÐ œì Ðassistance€by€an€attorney,€which€has€two€components:€Competence€and€conflict„freeÐ ˆØ Ðrepresentation.ðð€€òò(Woodóó€òòv.€Georgia,€óó450€U.S.€261,€271€(1981).€€Although€a€client€can€waiveÐ tÄ Ðconflict„free€representation,€the€trial€court€may€still€factor€that€in€to€the€decision€whether€or€not€toÐ `° Ðgrant€the€client€his€retained€counsel€of€choice.€€Thus,€the€Supreme€Court€has€upheld€a€trialÐ L œ Ðcourtððs€discretionary€decision€to€deny€the€client€his€retained€counsel€of€choice€because€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðattorneyððs€conflict€of€interest.€€(òòWheat€v.€United€Statesóó,€486€U.S.€153€(1988).) MÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€€€€These€materials€discuss€the€right€of€a€client€to€retain€an€attorney€of€his/her€choice€forÐ ° Ðthe€appeal.€€Note€that€there€is€no€federal€or€state€constitutional€right€of€the€client€to€proceed€in€proÐ œì Ðper€on€an€appeal.€€€(òòMartinez€v€Court€of€Appeal,€óó528€U.S.€152,€163€€(2000);€òòPeople€v€Scottóó€(1998)Ð ˆØ Ð64€Ô_ÔCal.AppÔ_Ô.4th€550,€579.) ÖÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔCalifornia€Constitution,€article€I,€section€15. ÅÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€òòÔ€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔSee,€e.g.,€People€v€Bartonóó€(1978)€21€Cal.3d€513.€€The€òòBartonóó€court€referred€to€federalÐ ° Ðcases€such€as€òòDouglas€v€Californiaóó,€372€U.S.€353€(1963)€in€asserting€the€right€to€effectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€on€appeal,€and€the€court€specifically€stated€it€was€ð ðunnecessary€to€reach€appellantððsÐ œì Ðremaining€contentions€which€include€...€whether€appellant€was€denied€any€right€underÐ ˆØ  ÐCaliforniaððs€independent€Constitution.ðð€€(21€Cal.€3d,€at€518€n.€2.) ÖÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔòòE.g.,€In€re€Williamsóó€(1969)€1€Cal.3d€168. ÎÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô‡X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔAs€noted€in€this€discussion€immediately€below,€the€trial€right€itself€is€limited€by€aÐ ° Ðnumber€of€factors,€and€thus€the€appeal€right€would€likely€be€similarly€limited.€€But€there€seemsÐ ° Ðno€reason€to€exclude€an€appeal€ð ðcounsel„of„choiceðð€right€entirely. VÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€Article€I,€Section€15€of€the€California€Constitution€states€ð ðPersons€may€not€...€beÐ ° Ðdeprived€of€life,€liberty€or€property€without€due€process€of€law.ðð€€Just€as€òòÔ_ÔEvittsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLuceyÔ_Ôóó€based€theÐ ° Ðfederal€constitutional€right€to€appellate€effective€assistance€of€counsel€on€the€due€process€clause,Ð œì Ðso€Californiaððs€right€would€be€based€on€its€due€process€clause.€€And€it€would€be€argued€that€anyÐ ˆØ ÐCalifornia€constitutional€appellate€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choice€would€similarly€be€based€onÐ tÄ Ðthe€due€process€clause. «Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔWith€regard€to€court„appointed€counsel,€the€òòJonesóó€court€upheld€the€removal€of€theÐ ° Ðattorney€in€language€which€could€also€be€applied€to€the€question€of€a€right€to€choose€retainedÐ ° Ðcounsel:€ð ð€[Ô_ÔW]henÔ_Ô,€as€here,€a€trial€court€removes€a€defense€attorney€because€of€a€potentialÐ œì Ðconflict€of€interest,€the€court€is€seeking€to€protect€the€defendantððs€right€to€competent€counsel.€€InÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€circumstances,€there€is€no€violation€of€the€right€to€counsel€guaranteed€by€article€I,€section€15Ð tÄ Ðof€the€state€Constitution,€notwithstanding€the€defendantððs€willingness€to€waive€the€potentialÐ ` ° Ðconflict.ðð€€(33€Cal.4th€at€244„45.) Ý ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔIn€addition€to€the€possible€limit€left€open€in€òòPeople€v€Jonesóó,€supra€(whether€theÐ ° Ðconstitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choice€applies€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation),€theÐ ° Ðcourts€have€noted€other€limits€on€the€right:€ð ðA€trial€court€need€not€permit€a€defendant€toÐ œì Ðdischarge€retained€counsel€where€(1)€it€would€cause€significant€prejudice€to€the€defendant,€e.g.,Ð ˆØ Ðby€forcing€him€to€trial€without€adequate€representation;€or€(2)€it€is€untimely€and€would€result€inÐ tÄ Ð...€disruption€of€the€orderly€processes€of€justice€unreasonable€under€the€circumstances€of€theÐ ` ° Ðparticular€case.ðð€(òòPeople€v€Turneróó€(1993)€7€Ô_ÔCal.AppÔ_Ô.4th€913,€918„919€[citations€and€internalÐ L œ Ðquote€marks€omitted].) HÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›Ô€€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984).€€This€right€to€effective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel€applies€to€both€retained€and€appointed€attorneys:€ð ðAn€accused€is€entitled€to€be€assisted€byÐ ° Ðan€attorney,€whether€retained€or€appointed,€who€plays€the€role€necessary€to€ensure€that€the€trial€isÐ œì Ðfair.ðð€€(466€U.S.,€at€685.) RÝ ƒ ‘Å$ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€Ô€X÷\XˆŠ×›ÔIn€addition€to€the€California€Constitution,€there€is€a€statutory€right€to€counsel€ofÐ ° Ðchoice:€Code€of€Civil€Procedure,€section€284.€€However,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€statutoryÐ ° Ðright€is€broader€than€the€constitutional€right.€€Thus,€the€text€in€this€section€discusses€the€possibleÐ œì Ðlimits€of€the€California€constitutional€rights€as€delineated€in€California€cases.Document2zzb21992167128Document2zzf21992167128http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CATRLPCR3-310&FindType=LDocument2zzf1b1992167128http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=74CAAPP3D715&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=719http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=74CAAPP3D715&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=719http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1977122214http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=10CALIF3D72&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=10CALIF3D72&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973124944(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ dÝ ƒ”Ê!ÝÔ€Š×›ˆXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÔ‡R¯N QˆŠ×›Ôà@  ìàFIRST€DISTRICT€APPELLATE€PROJECT€ˆÐ ° Ðà@QQ"ìàTRAINING€SEMINARˆÐ üL Ðà@VV"ìàÔ#†Š×›ˆ QR¯N_#ÔÔ‡î¢îˆŠ×›ÔJanuary€27,€2007ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌÌÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÔ#†Š×›ˆîî¢4#ÔÔ‡õ:ˆŠ×›ÔÌÌÌòòà@»»%ìàEthics€of€ˆÐ è8  Ðà@ttìàRepresenting€a€Retained€Client€on€à@@°°ìàˆÐ €Ð  Ðà@² ² ìàAppeal€Whom€the€Attorney€ˆÐ h  Ðà@Í Í ìàRepresented€at€Trial€óóˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ#†Š×›ˆõ:´#ÔÔ‡î¢îˆŠ×›ÔÌÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@$ìàMat€Ô_ÔZwerlingÔ_ԈРpÀ Ðà@00$ìàJeremy€PriceˆÐ ” ä ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†Š×›ˆîî¢ #ÔÔ‡õ:ˆŠ×›ÔÐ  ü+L' Ðà@  %ìàETHICS€OF€ˆÐ ° Ðà@îîìàREPRESENTING€A€RETAINED€CLIENT€ON€à@@°°ìàˆÐ H˜ Ðà@ËËìàAPPEAL€WHOM€THE€ATTORNEY€ˆÐ à0 Ðà@> > ìàREPRESENTED€AT€TRIAL€ˆÐ x È ÐÔ#†Š×›ˆõ:ö#Ôó óÌÌà@­­"ìàÔ€î¢îˆŠ×›Ôò òòòTABLE€OF€CONTENTSó óóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌÌÔ€Š×›ˆîî¢Ôò òI.€€€Introduction€€€€.......................................................................................€€€€€€1Ð €Ð  ÐÌII.€€The€client€has€a€limited€federal€Sixth€Amendment€and€Ð |Ì  Ѐ€€€€€Due€Process€right€to€retain€the€attorney€of€his/her€choice€Ð zÊ  Ѐ€€€€€for€òòtrialóó.€However,€this€right€can€be€overcome€by€other€Ð xÈ  Ѐ€€€€€considerations,€including€the€need€to€avoid€a€conflict€of€Ð vÆ Ѐ€€€€€interest€even€if€the€client€waives€the€conflict.€€Any€federal€Ð tÄ Ѐ€€€€€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choice€on€òòappealóó€Ð r Ѐ€€€€€likely€would€be€similarly€limited.€..........................................................€€€€€€€2Ð pÀ ÐÌó óÌà  àòòWheat€v.€United€States,€óó€486€U.S.€153€(1988)Ð l¼ Ðà  àòòUnited€States€v.€Gonzalez„Lopez,€òò€€€€€€óóóó€U.S.€òò€€€€€€óó€(126€S.Ct.€2557)€(2006)Ð l¼ ÐÌò òÌIII.€€The€client€has€a€California€constitutional€right€to€retain€Ð jº Ѐ€€€€€€the€attorney€of€his/her€choice€at€òòtrialóó.€€The€courts€have€left€Ð h ¸ Ѐ€€€€€€open€the€question€whether€that€right€is€broader€than€the€Ð f!¶ Ѐ€€€€€€federal€Sixth€Amendment€right,€and€specifically€whether€Ð d"´ Ѐ€€€€€€the€right€applies€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation€where€theÐ b#² Ѐ€€€€€€client€waives€the€conflict.€Thus€it€is€unclear€what€the€scope€Ð `$° Ѐ€€€€€€of€any€California€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€Ð ^%®  Ѐ€€€€€€choice€on€òòappealóó€would€be.€€.....................................................................€€€€€€6Ð \&¬! ÐÌà  àó óòòPeople€v€Jonesóó€(2004)€33€Cal€4òòthóó€234Ð X(¨#! Ðà  àòòPeople€v€Baylis€óó(2006)€139€Cal.App.4th€1054ò òÐ X)¨$" ÐÌÌÌÐ R-¢(& ÐIV.€€€Courts€have€held€that€representing€the€same€client€at€Ð ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€trial€and€on€appeal€(where€client€lost€at€trial)€is€an€Ð ®þ Ѐ€€€€€€€€inherent€conflict€of€interest.€€€€...........................................................€€€€11Ð ¬ü Ðó óÌà  àòòPeople€v€Bailey€óó(1992)€9€Cal.App.4th€1252€(1òòstóó€Dist.,€Div.€5)Ð ªú Ðà  àòòPeople€v€Kipp€óó(2001)€26€Cal.4th€1100Ð ª ú Ðà  àòòBurns€v€Gammon€óó173€F.3d€1089€(8òòthóó€Cir.€€1999)Ð ª ú ÐÌò òÌV.€€The€San€Diego€County€Bar€Association€has€issued€an€Ethics€Ð ¨ ø  Ѐ€€€€€€Opinion€holding€that€the€attorney€may€ethically€represent€the€Ð ¦ö  Ѐ€€€€€€client€in€a€current€case€(which€charges€a€three„strikes€prior)€Ð ¤ô  Ѐ€€€€€€whom€the€attorney€represented€at€the€prior,€provided:€Ð ¢ò  Ѐ€€€€€€(1)€the€client€waives€the€potential€conflict€of€interest;€and€(2)€if€Ð  ð  Ѐ€€€€€€the€attorney€discovers€arguable€IAC€in€the€prior€the€attorney€Ð žî  Ѐ€€€€€€must€then€withdraw€from€the€representation.€€....................................€€€€14Ð œì Ðó óÌà  àòòSan€Diego€County€Bar€Association€Ethics€Opinion€1995„1óóÐ šê ÐÌÌÌò òVI.€€Conclusion€................................................................................................ó ó€€€€€ò ò15ó óÐ šê Ðò òó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ  ž(î#$ ÐØØò òÔ‡õ:ˆŠ×›ÔÑ8€×›ŠˆddÈ8ÑÑ  Ñà@  %ìàETHICS€OF€ˆÐ ° Ðà@îîìàREPRESENTING€A€RETAINED€CLIENT€ON€à@@°°ìàˆÐ H˜ Ðà@ËËìàAPPEAL€WHOM€THE€ATTORNEY€ˆÐ à0 Ðà@4 4 ìàREPRESENTED€AT€TRIALÔ#†Š×›ˆõ:#Ôó ó€€ò òÔ‡õ:ˆŠ×›ÔˆÐ x È ÐÔ#†Š×›ˆõ:#Ôó óÌà@»»ìàFirst€District€Appellate€ProjectˆÐ  ` Ðà@44ìàMat€Zwerling,€Jeremy€PriceˆÐ  ` Ðà@‘‘$ìàJanuary,€2007ˆÐ `  ÐÌÌà  àò òIntroductionó ó.Ð `  ÐÌà  àThese€materials€discuss€the€ethics€of€representing€the€same€client€at€trial€and€on€aÐ d  Ðretained€appeal€(where€the€client€lost€at€trial).€€Ð d  ÐÌà  àSections€II€and€III€discuss€whether€the€client€has€a€federal€or€California€stateÐ d Ðconstitutional€right€to€retain€counsel€of€choice€on€appeal,€even€in€a€situation€where€thereÐ d Ðis€a€conflict€of€interest€between€the€client€and€counsel€(which€the€client€waives).€€If€thereÐ d Ðis€such€a€right,€then€the€representation€of€the€client€on€appeal€should€necessarily€be€ethicalÐ d Ðsince€it€is€within€the€clientððs€constitutional€rights.€€However,€although€there€are€goodÐ d Ðarguments€that€can€be€made€that€there€is€a€limited€constitutional€right€to€retained€counselÐ d Ðof€choice€on€appeal,€such€a€right€would€probably€be€held€not€to€apply€in€a€conflict€ofÐ d Ðinterest€situation.Ð d ÐÌà  àSection€IV€then€discusses€that€the€courts€have€viewed€such€representation€as€anÐ d Ðinherent€conflict€of€interest,€since€on€appeal€the€attorney€might€have€to€argue€his/her€ownÐ  d Ðineffective€assistance€(IAC)€at€trial,€a€situation€the€courts€have€labeled€ððuntenable.ððÐ !d ÐÌà  àSection€V€discusses€an€ethical€ruling€by€the€San€Diego€Bar€Association€whichÐ #d Ðdealt€with€an€analogous€situation.Ð $d ÐÌà  àThe€Conclusion€reached€in€these€materials€is€that€it€is€probably€ethical€to€undertakeÐ &d! Ðsuch€representation€so€long€as:€(1)€the€client€waives€any€conflict;€and€(2)€the€attorneyÐ 'd"  Ðwithdraws€from€the€appellate€representation€if€the€attorney€does€find€arguable€IAC€thatÐ (d#! Ðmight€be€raised€on€the€appeal€and/or€by€way€of€writ.€€€However,€although€probablyÐ )d$" Ðethical,€it€seems€unwise€to€undertake€such€representation.Ð *d%# ÐÌâ âÐ ,d'%ÿ Ðò òà  àII.ó ó€ò òó ó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€€€The€client€has€a€limited€federal€Sixth€Amendment€and€Due€Process€rightÐ ° Ðâ âto€retain€the€attorney€of€his/her€choice€for€òòtrialóó.€However,€this€right€can€be€overcomeÐ ´ Ðby€other€considerations,€including€the€need€to€avoid€a€conflict€of€interest€even€if€theÐ ² Ðclient€waives€the€conflict.€€Any€federal€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€ofÐ ° Ðchoice€on€òòappealóó€would€likely€be€similarly€limited.€€ó óÐ ®þ ÐÌÌà  àIn€òòUnited€States€v€Gonzalez„Lopez,€óó___€U.S.€___,€126€S.Ct.€2557,€2561€(2006),€theÐ ¬ ü ÐSupreme€Court€held:Ð ¬ ü ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€ð ðThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€that€ðð[i]n€all€criminalÐ ¬ü  Ðprosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€...€to€have€theÐ ¬ü  ÐAssistance€of€Counsel€for€his€defence.ðð€€We€have€previouslyÐ ¬ü  Ðheld€that€an€element€of€this€right€is€the€right€of€a€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðwho€does€not€require€appointed€counsel€to€choose€who€willÐ ¬ü  Ðrepresent€him.ððЬü` x` x ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€court€also€noted€that€this€right€is€subject€to€a€balancing€test,€and€canÐ ¬ü Ðbe€overcome€by€a€number€of€considerations:Ð ¬ü ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€ð ð[T]he€right€to€counsel€of€choice€does€not€extend€toÐ ¬ü Ðdefendants€who€require€counsel€to€be€appointed€for€them.€Ð ¬ü ÐNor€may€a€defendant€insist€on€representation€by€a€person€whoÐ ¬ü Ðis€not€a€member€of€the€bar,€or€demand€that€a€court€honor€hisÐ ¬ü Ðwaiver€of€conflict„free€representation.€€We€have€recognized€aÐ ¬ü Ðtrial€courtððs€wide€latitude€in€balancing€the€right€to€counsel€ofÐ ¬ü Ðchoice€against€the€need€of€fairness.€€The€court€has,€moreover,Ð ¬ü Ðan€ððindependent€interest€in€ensuring€that€criminal€trials€are€Ð¬ü` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àconducted€within€the€ethical€standards€of€the€profession€andÐ ¬ ü Ðthat€legal€proceedings€appear€fair€to€all€who€observe€them.ððððЬ!ü` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(126€S.Ct.€at€2565„66.€€Citations€omitted.)Ð ¬"ü ÐÌà  àAs€will€be€discussed€below,€two€of€these€considerations€which€can€overcome€theÐ ¬$ü  Ðright€to€counsel€of€choice€are€relevant€here:€ensuring€conflict„free€representation€(even€ifÐ ¬%ü ! Ðthe€client€is€willing€to€waive€the€conflict);€and€meeting€the€ethical€standards€of€theÐ ¬&ü!" Ðprofession€which€includes€a€non„waivable€duty€of€the€attorney€to€act€competently€in€theÐ ° Ðcurrent€representation.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àFirst,€however,€is€the€question€whether€there€is€any€Sixth€Amendment/Due€ProcessÐ ° Ðright€to€counsel€of€choice€on€òòappealóó.€€No€cases€have€directly€held€that€there€isð!ð€or€is€notð!ðÐ ° Ðsuch€a€federal€constitutional€right.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó óòòóóÐ °  ÐÌà  àIt€seems€that€such€a€right€can€be€argued€for€by€linking€several€U.S.€Supreme€CourtÐ °  Ðholdings.€€Ð °  ÐÌà  àThe€links€are€as€follows:Ð °  ÐÌà  àà ` à1.€€The€Sixth€Amendment€provides€the€right€to€ð ðAssistance€of€Counselðð€atÐ °  Ðtrial.€Ð °  ÐÌà  àà ` à2.€€The€right€to€Assistance€of€Counsel€includes€several€components,€interÐ ° Ðâ âalia:€(a)€the€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial;׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(b)€the€right€to€retainedÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôcounsel€of€choice€at€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóóÐ ° Ðâ âÌà  àà ` à3.€€In€the€landmark€case€of€òòGideon€v.€Wainwright,óó€372€U.S.€335€(1963)€theÐ ° Ðcourt€extended€the€Sixth€Amendment€trial€right€to€counsel€to€the€states€via€the€DueÐ ° ÐProcess€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.׃|×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€includes€both€the€effectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€of€counsel€component,òòóó׃!ô×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€counsel€of€choice€component.׃€ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€bothÐ °  Ðcomponents€of€the€trial€right€to€counsel€are€applicable€to€the€states,€via€the€SixthÐ °  ÐAmendment€and€the€Due€Process€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.Ð °  ÐÌà  àà ` à4.€€There€is€no€constitutional€obligation€for€a€state€to€provide€an€òòappealóó€atÐ °  Ðall;׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€but€where€the€state€does€provide€an€appeal€of€right,€òòóóthe€appeal€is€of€such€fundamentalÐ °  Ðimportance€that€the€right€to€counsel€on€the€appeal€is€required€by€the€Due€Process€clause€ofÐ °  Ðthe€Fourteenth€Amendment.׃è×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€Due€Process€right€to€counsel€includes€effectiveÐ °  Ðassistance€of€counsel.׃œ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€by€the€sequence€of€the€above€steps,€the€ð ðeffectiveÐ °  Ðassistanceðð€component€applies€to€appeals.Ð ° Ðà  àÌà  àà ` à5.€€Therefore,€by€the€same€logic€and€reasoning,€the€ð ðcounsel€of€choiceððÐ ° Ðcomponent€of€the€right€to€counsel€should€also€apply€to€appeals.€Such€a€right€alreadyÐ ° Ðapplies€to€state€òòtrialsóó,€and€there€are€no€apparent€countervailing€considerations€in€applyingÐ ° Ðsuch€a€component€of€the€Due€Process€right€to€counsel€to€state€appeals.׃|×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€There€does€notÐ °  Ðseem€a€basis€for€making€the€ð ðeffective€assistanceðð€component€applicable€to€appeals,€butÐ °  Ðnot€the€ð ðcounsel€of€choiceðð€component.Ð °  ÐÌà  àIt€is€important€to€note,€however,€that€the€trial€right€to€counsel€of€choice€itself€is,€asÐ °  Ðstated€in€òòGonzalez„Lopezóó,€subject€to€a€balancing€test€and€can€be€overcome€by€a€number€ofÐ °  Ðfactors,€including€the€need€to€ensure€conflict„free€representation€and€the€need€for€counselÐ °  Ðto€act€within€the€ethical€requirements€of€the€profession.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€is€no€reason€why€theÐ °  Ðappeal€right,€if€it€did€exist,€would€be€broader€than€the€trial€right,€and€thus€it€likely€wouldÐ °  Ðbe€subject€to€the€same€limiting€factors.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€other€words,€although€it€can€be€argued€that€a€federal€constitutional€right€toÐ ° Ðretained€counsel€of€choice€applies€on€appeal,€nonetheless€as€a€matter€of€both€law€andÐ ° Ðpolicy€the€attorney€and€client€cannot€rely€on€any€such€absolute€right€that€wouldÐ ° Ðautomatically€trump€the€need€to€ensure€conflict„free€representation.€This€is€important,Ð ° Ðbecause,€as€discussed€below,€the€courts€and€bar€associations€have€found€representing€theÐ ° Ðsame€client€at€trial€and€appeal€is€a€conflict€of€interest,€and€may€possibly€also€violate€theÐ ° Ðrequirement€that€the€attorney€provide€competent€representation€for€the€client.€€It€does€notÐ ° Ðseem,€therefore,€that€the€(limited)€federal€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choiceÐ ° Ðcan€be€invoked€to€assert€that€it€is€automatically€ethical€for€the€attorney€to€represent€theÐ ° Ðsame€client€at€trial€and€on€appeal.Ð ° Їò òà  àIII.€€The€client€has€a€California€constitutional€right€to€retain€the€attorney€ofÐ ° Ðhis/her€choice€at€òòtrialóó.€€The€courts€have€left€open€the€question€whether€that€right€isÐ ®þ Ðbroader€than€the€federal€Sixth€Amendment€right,€and€specifically€whether€the€rightÐ ¬ü Ðapplies€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation€where€the€client€waives€the€conflict.€Thus€itÐ ªú Ðis€unclear€what€the€scope€of€any€California€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€Ð ¨ø Ðchoice€on€òòappealóó€would€be.€Ð ¦ ö Ðó óÌÌà  àIt€is€clear€that€in€addition€to€any€federal€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€retained€counselÐ ¤ ô Ðof€choice€at€òòtrialóó,€there€is€also€a€California€constitutional€right.€€Article€I,€section€15€of€theÐ ¤ ô  ÐConstitution€provides€ð ðThe€defendant€in€a€criminal€cause€has€the€right€...€to€have€theÐ ¤ô  Ðassistance€of€counsel€for€the€defendantððs€defense€....ðð€€This€right€includes€the€right€toÐ ¤ô  Ðretained€counsel€of€choice:Ð ¤ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€ð ðUnder€both€the€state€and€federal€Constitutions,€aÐ ¤ô  Ðdefendant€in€a€criminal€case€has€a€right€to€the€assistance€ofÐ ¤ô Ðcounsel,€and€that€right€embraces€the€right€to€retain€counsel€ofÐ ¤ô Ðoneððs€own€choice,€within€limits.ððФô` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(òòPeople€v€Baylisóó,€òòóó(2006)€139€Cal.App.4th€1054,€1070)׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€California€courts€have€left€open€whether€the€California€and€federalÐ ¤ô Ðrights€are€the€same,€or€whether€Californiaððs€right€is€broader€in€that€it€òòrequiresóó€the€trialÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€to€appoint€counsel€of€choice€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation€as€long€as€the€clientÐ ¤ô Ðwaives€the€conflict.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¤ô ÐÌò òó óà  àIn€òòPeople€v€Jones€óó(2004)€33€Cal.4th€234,€the€court€dealt€with€a€situation€where€theÐ ¤ô Ðtrial€court€removed€the€clientððs€trial€counsel€due€to€a€conflict€of€interest,€even€though€theÐ ¤ô Ðclient€waived€the€conflict.€€The€Supreme€Court€upheld€the€removal.€€The€court€discussedÐ ¤ô Ðprior€California€cases,€noting€that€it€was€unclear€whether€those€cases€were€based€onÐ ° Ðfederal€or€California€constitutional€provisions.€€The€òòJonesóó€court€concluded€that€since€theÐ ° Ðclientððs€attorney€was€court„appointed,€the€removal€was€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretionÐ ° Ðwhether€or€not€such€removal€would€be€insufficient€in€a€retained€case.€€It€left€open€theÐ ° Ðquestion€whether€the€state€constitutional€guarantee€of€assistance€of€counsel€was€broaderÐ ° Ðthan€the€federal€right€by€encompassing€an€absolute€right€of€retained€counsel€of€choice€in€aÐ °  Ðconflict€situation€where€the€client€waived€the€conflict:Ð °  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðIn€òòAlcocer€v€Superior€Court€óó(1988)€206€Cal.App.3d€951,€957Ð °  Ðthe€Court€of€Appeal€stated:€ððA€court€abridges€a€defendantððsÐ °  Ðright€to€counsel€when€it€removes€òòretainedóó€defense€counsel€inÐ °  Ðthe€face€of€a€defendantððs€willingness€to€make€an€informed€andÐ °  Ðintelligent€waiver€of€his€right€to€be€represented€by€conflict„Ð °  Ðfree€counsel.ðð€€(Italics€added.)€€We€need€not€decide€whetherÐ °  Ðthe€state€Constitution€permits€a€defendant€to€insist€on€beingÐ ° Ðrepresented€by€a€òòretainedóó€attorney€who€has€a€potential€conflictÐ ° Ðof€interest,€for€here€defendantððs€attorney€was€appointed€by€theÐ ° Ðcourt,€not€privately€retained€by€defendant.ððа` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(33€Cal.4th€at€p.€245,€n.3.)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÌà  àRecently€Division€Five€of€the€First€District€discussed€this€area€of€law€in€òòPeople€vÐ ° ÐBaylisóó,€òòóósupra.€€The€court€concluded€that€it€did€not€have€to€reach€the€question€whether€theÐ ° Ðstate€Constitution€guaranteed€counsel€of€choice€even€in€a€conflict€situation,€because€inÐ ° ÐòòBaylisóó€the€conflict€was€with€another€defendant€(Baylisðð€counsel€had€represented€the€co„Ð ° Ðdefendant€previously€and€had€confidential€information€from€that€client).€€The€courtÐ ° Ðupheld€the€removal€of€Baylisðð€counsel€on€grounds€that€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€processÐ ° Ðsupported€the€removal:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThat€a€defendant€is€ððmaster€of€his€own€fateðð€does€not€meanÐ °  Ðthat€the€trial€court€must€disregard€the€interests€of€othersÐ °! Ðpotentially€adversely€affected€by€the€representation€and€theÐ °" Ðeffect€of€the€conflict€on€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€process.€...€Ð °# Ѐ€€€€€€€Ultimately€the€issue€involves€a€conflict€between€aÐ ° Ðclientððs€right€to€counsel€of€his€choice€and€the€need€to€maintainÐ ° Ðethical€standards€of€professional€responsibility.€€TheÐ ° Ðpreservation€of€public€trust€both€in€the€scrupulousÐ ° Ðadministration€of€justice€and€in€the€integrity€of€the€bar€isÐ ° Ðparamount.€...€The€clientððs€recognizably€important€right€toÐ °  Ðcounsel€of€his€choice€must€yield,€however,€to€considerationsÐ °  Ðof€ethics€which€run€to€the€very€integrity€of€the€judicialÐ °  Ðprocess.ððа ` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(139€Cal.App.4th€at€1071,€1073.€€Internal€quotation€marks€omitted.)Ð °  ÐÌÌà  àThese€cases€thus€leave€open€the€question€whether€there€is€an€unfettered€CaliforniaÐ °  Ðright€to€counsel€of€choice€at€trial€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation€(as€long€as€the€clientÐ °  Ðwaives€the€conflict€of€interest).€€€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€as€the€òòBaylisóó€quote€shows,€the€trial€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choiceÐ ° Ðis€also€subordinate€to€the€ethical€rules€of€the€judicial€process.€€As€discussed€below,€one€ofÐ ° Ðthe€grounds€found€relevant€in€the€Ethical€Opinion€of€the€San€Diego€Bar€Association€isÐ ° Ðthat€the€client€on€appeal€cannot€waive€the€requirement€that€his€attorney€on€appealÐ ° Ðrepresent€him€competently.€€The€cases€in€the€next€section€below€show€that€the€courtsÐ ° Ðbelieve€an€attorney€cannot€competently€argue€his/her€own€ineffectiveness€of€counsel.€Ð ° ÐThus,€in€this€particular€kind€of€conflict€of€interest,€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€processÐ ° Ð(i.e.,€that€a€lawyer€cannot€intentionally€act€in€an€incompetent€manner)€might€overcome€theÐ ° Ðgeneral€right€to€counsel€of€choice.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIt€is€thus€unclear€to€what€extent€any€California€òòtrialóó€right€to€retained€counsel€ofÐ ° Ðchoice€is€limited,€and€thus,€it€would€be€unclear€whether€any€California€òòappealóó€right€toÐ ° Ðretained€counsel€of€choice€would€be€similarly€limited.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€any€event,€the€first€question€isÐ °  Ðwhether€there€is€arguably€any€California€constitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choiceÐ °! Ðon€appeal€at€all.Ð °" Їà  àThere€are€no€cases€directly€holding€that€there€isð!ð€or€is€notð!ð€€a€California€right€toÐ ° Ðretained€counsel€of€choice€on€appealò ò.€ó ó€€However,€it€is€possible€to€argue€for€such€a€right,Ð ° Ðbuilt€on€the€same€kind€of€scaffolding€that€was€shown€in€the€previous€section,€regardingÐ ´ Ðarguing€for€a€federal€Sixth€Amendment/Due€Process€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choiceÐ ´ Ðon€appeal.Ð ´ ÐÌà  àThe€argument€is€first,€as€noted,€the€California€constitution€provides€for€assistanceÐ ´  Ðof€counsel€at€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€the€courts€have€held€that€this€trial€right€has€two€components:€Ð ´  Ð(1)€there€is€a€trial€right€to€retained€counselòòóó€of€choice;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€(2),€there€has€long€been€a€rightÐ ´  Ðto€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.׃X×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р´   ÐÌà  àIn€the€landmark€case€of€òòIn€re€Smithóó€(1970)€3€Cal.3d€192,€the€court€dealt€with€ð ðaÐ ´  Ðcase€of€first€impression€on€the€subject€of€incompetency€of€appellate€counsel.ðð€€(3€Cal.3d,Ð ´  Ðat€195.)€€€Without€much€analysis,€the€court€concluded€that€the€effective„assistanceÐ ´  Ðcomponent€of€the€right€to€counsel€applied€to€òòappealsóó:€ð ðWe€hold€that€the€inexcusableÐ ´ Ðfailure€of€petitionerððs€appellate€counsel€to€raise€crucial€assignments€of€error,€whichÐ ´ Ðarguably€might€have€resulted€in€a€reversal,€deprived€petitioner€of€the€effective€assistanceÐ ´ Ðof€counsel€to€which€he€was€entitled€under€the€Constitution.ðð€€(Id.,€at€202„203.)Ð ´ ÐÌà  àThe€argument€for€retained€counsel„of„choice€on€appeal€would€then€simply€be€thatÐ ´ Ðif€the€effective„assistance€component€of€the€right€to€counsel€is€significant€enough€toÐ ´ Ðwarrant€inclusion€in€appeals€as€well€as€trials,€then€so€should€the€counsel„of„choiceÐ ´ Ðcomponent.Ð ´ ÐÌà  àThere€are€some€problems€with€this€analysis,€however.€€First,€the€òòSmith€óócase€did€notÐ ´ Ðspecify€which€ð ðConstitutionðð€the€court€meant€as€the€basis€for€applying€the€right€toÐ ´ Ðeffective€assistance€on€appeal.€€California€cases€following€òòSmithóó€likewise€did€not€specify,Ð ´ Ðthough€they€cite€federal€cases€and€thus€imply€that€the€court€was€interpreting€the€federalÐ ´ ÐConstitution,€not€Californiaððs.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€does€not€matter€for€the€ð ðeffective€assistanceððÐ ´  Ðcomponent,€because€after€òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóóò òó ó,€supra,€the€federal€due€process€clause€requiresÐ ° Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIt€would€be€problematic,€however,€if€any€California€appeal€right€to€retainedÐ ° Ðcounsel€of€choice€is€based€on€the€federal€Constitution.€The€problem€is€that€the€federalÐ ° Ðconstitutional€right€can€clearly€be€overcome€by€a€conflict€of€interest.€€Thus,€it€would€beÐ °  Ðnecessary€for€a€broader€California€right€to€be€based€on€the€following€argument:Ð °  ÐÌà  à(1)€The€California€trial€right€to€counsel€of€choice€applies€even€where€there€is€aÐ °  Ðconflict€of€interest€as€long€as€the€client€waives€the€conflictð!ð€as€noted€above,€this€questionÐ °  Ðhas€not€been€decided€and€is€the€precise€question€left€open€in€òòPeople€v€Jonesóó€and€òòPeople€vÐ °  ÐBaylisóó,€supra.Ð °  Ðà  àÌà  à(2)€Just€as€a€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€is€so€important€it€applies€toÐ °  Ðappeals,€so€should€the€right€to€counsel€of€choice.€Both€of€these€rights€would€be€based€onÐ ° Ðthe€California€Constitutionððs€due€process€clause.׃|×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÌà  à(3)€€And€since€the€trial€right€counsel€of€choice€applies€(arguably)€even€where€thereÐ ° Ðis€a€conflict€of€interest,€so€should€the€parallel€appellate€right€be€similarly€broad.Ð ° ÐÌà  àAs€noted,€no€court€has€ruled€on€such€an€argument.€€Thus,€it€is€speculative€whetherÐ ° Ðthere€is€an€independent€€right€to€retained€counsel€on€appeal€in€California€which€appliesÐ ° Ðeven€in€a€conflict€of€interest€situation;€and€therefore,€there€is€no€such€clear€right€whichÐ ° Ðcan€form€the€basis€of€an€argument€that€representing€the€same€client€at€trial€and€on€appealÐ ° Ðmust€be€ethical€because€the€client€has€a€constitutional€right€to€such€representation€if€he€orÐ ° Ðshe€so€chooses.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àÌÌò òÌÐ ®"þ Їà  àIV.€€Courts€have€held€that€representing€the€same€client€at€trial€and€on€appealÐ ° Ð(where€client€lost€at€trial)€is€a€conflict€of€interest.€€ó óÐ ®þ ÐÌà  àThe€most€notable€case€for€this€proposition€is€the€First€District,€Division€Five€caseÐ ¬ü Ðof€òòPeople€v€Bailey€óó(1992)€9€Cal.App.4th€1252.€€The€court€stated€at€length:Ð ¬ü ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€ð ðWe€believe€that€there€is€an€inherent€conflict€whenÐ ¬ ü Ðappointed€trial€counsel€in€a€criminal€case€is€also€appointed€toÐ ¬ ü Ðact€as€counsel€on€appeal.€We€therefore€discourage€the€practiceÐ ¬ ü Ðof€allowing€such€appointments€even€when,€as€here,€the€clientÐ ¬ ü  Ðsigns€a€declaration€under€penalty€of€perjury€that€he€does€notÐ ¬ü  Ðbelieve€ð ð...€there€is€any€reason€for€another€lawyer€to€reviewÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€records€of€my€case€regarding€potential€issues€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€I€do€not€believe€that€suchÐ ¬ü  Ðissues€exist€and€I€make€no€such€request.ðð€We€know,€of€course,Ð ¬ü  Ðthat€defendant€later€specifically€requested€his€counsel€raiseÐ ¬ü Ðsuch€issues€on€appeal.€In€fact,€defendant€may€now€beÐ ¬ü Ðestopped€from€raising€such€issues€because€of€his€declaration.Ð ¬ü ÐSuch€manipulation€by€a€defendant€who,€from€the€moment€theÐ ¬ü Ðtrial€began,€òòóóattempted€to€use€the€issue€of€the€adequacy€ofÐ ¬ü Ðcounsel€as€a€ploy€to€stall€proceedings€will€undoubtedly€resultÐ ¬ü Ðin€further€proceedings€on€appeal€to€keep€the€ð ðgameðð€going.Ьü` x` x ÐòòóóÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€The€American€Bar€Association's€Model€Rules€ofÐ ¬ü ÐProfessional€Conduct,€rule€1.7(b)€provides:€ð ðA€lawyer€shallÐ ¬ü Ðnot€represent€a€client€if€the€representation€of€that€client€mayÐ ¬ü Ðbe€materially€limited€by€the€lawyer's€responsibilityò òó ó€to€anotherÐ ¬ü Ðclient€or€to€a€third€person,€or€by€the€lawyer's€own€interests€....ððÐ ¬ü ÐÔ4‚1Ô_` ÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÔ6·{ÔÝ‚;ÍOË{ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_` ù{ÔÔ% €2 ÔAnd,€as€the€comment€points€out,€ð ðThe€critical€questions€areÐ ¬ ü Ðthe€likelihood€that€a€conflict€will€eventuate€and,€if€it€does,Ð ¬!ü Ðwhether€it€will€materially€interfere€with€the€lawyer'sÐ ¬"ü Ðindependent€professional€judgment€in€considering€alternativesÐ ¬#ü Ðor€foreclose€courses€of€action€that€reasonably€should€beÐ ¬$ü  Ðpursued€on€behalf€of€the€client.ðð€(ABA€Model€Rules€Prof.Ð ¬%ü ! ÐConduct,€rule€1.7(b);€see€also€Ô4‚3Ô_†ÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôrule€3-310(F)€Rules€Prof.Ð ¬&ü!" ÐConductÔ6f~ÔÝ‚;ÍOz~ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_< ¨~Ô€of€State€Bar.)Ь'ü"#` x` x ÐÌÔ% €4 Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€The€result€is€often€that€which€is€evidenced€here;€namely,Ð ¬)ü$% Ðbogus€issues€are€raised€without€much€analysis€of€whetherÐ ¬*ü%& Ðrepresentation€was€deficient.€Counsel€is€in€the€untenableÐ ¬+ü&' Ðposition€of€urging€his€own€incompetency.€(See€Ô4‚5Ô_VÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔòòIn€re€FountainÔ6¶€ÔÝ‚;ÍOÊ€ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_Bø€ÔÔ4‚6Ô_BÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔóóÐ ° Ð(1977)€74€Cal.App.3d€715,€719Ô6jÔÝ‚;ÍO~ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_ò¬Ô€Ô4‚7Ô_(ÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ô[141€Cal.Rptr.€654].)Ô6C‚ÔÝ‚;ÍOW‚ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_D…‚Ô€TheÐ ° Ðissue€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel€is€thus€left€open€toÐ ° Ðfurther€attack€without€a€final€resolution.€(Ô4‚8Ô_VÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔòòIn€re€BenoitÔ6’ƒÔÝ‚;ÍO¦ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_^ÔƒÔÔ4‚9Ô_^ÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóó€(1973)Ð ° Ð10€Cal.3d€72,€78Ô6D„ÔÝ‚;ÍOX„ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_ú†„Ô€Ô4‚:Ô_0ÔÝ‚;ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ô[109€Cal.Rptr.€785,€514€P.2d€97]Ô6…ÔÝ‚;ÍO+…ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ô_HY…Ô€[habeasÐ ° Ðcorpus€available€to€attack€denial€of€right€to€effective€appeal].)Ð °  ÐWe,€therefore,€disapprove€appointed€trial€counsel€beingÐ °  Ðappointed€to€represent€a€defendant€on€appeal.ððа ` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(9€Cal.App.4th€at€pp€1254„55.€€Footnotes€omitted.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àOther€courts€have€agreed.€€In€òòPeople€v€Kippóó€(2001)€26€Cal.4th€1100,€1139,€theÐ °  ÐCalifornia€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð °  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð[R]epresentation€by€the€same€attorney€at€trial€and€on€appealÐ °  Ð[is]€a€situation€in€which€courts€have€recognized€ððan€inherentÐ ° Ðconflictðð€because€counsel€ððis€in€the€untenable€position€ofÐ ° Ðurging€his€own€incompetency.ððððа` x` x Ðà  àà ` à(Quoting€from€òòPeople€v€Bailey,€supra.)óóÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Eighth€Circuit€similarly€has€found€a€conflict€of€interest.€€In€òòBurns€v€GammonóóÐ ° Ð173€F.3d€1089,€1092€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1999),€the€court€stated:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à€€€€€ð ðNo€doubt€there€was€a€conflict€of€interest€in€the€presentÐ ° Ðcase.€€The€lawyer€who€represented€petitioner€on€direct€appealÐ ° Ðcame€from€the€same€office€as€the€lawyer€who€had€representedÐ ° Ðhim€at€trial.€€So€far€as€an€argument€that€trial€counsel€had€beenÐ ° Ðconstitutionally€ineffective€is€concerned,€direct„appealÐ ° Ðcounsel€had€a€clear€conflict€of€interest.ððа` x` x ÐÌÌà  àOne€court,€Division€Two€of€the€Fourth€District,€has€promulgated€MiscellaneousÐ °" ÐOrder€03„2,€stating:€ð ð[Because€trial€counsel€is€not€able€to€objectively€review€the€record€toÐ °# Ðdetermine€if€trial€counsel€committed€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel],€the€courtÐ °$  Ðdiscourages€retained€appellate€counsel€from€representing€parties€whom€they€representedÐ °%!! Ðin€the€trial€court€...ððÐ °&"" ÐÌà  àOverall,€the€courts€have€been€clear€that€there€is€at€the€least€a€potential,€and€in€someÐ °($$ Ðcases€an€actual,€conflict€of€interest€when€an€attorney€represents€the€same€client€at€trial€andÐ °)%% Ðappeal.€€California€courts€have€defined€a€conflict€of€interest€as€ð ðall€situations€in€which€anÐ °*&& Ðattorneyððs€loyalty€to,€or€efforts€on€behalf€of,€a€client€are€threatened€...€by€his€ownÐ °+'' Ðinterests.ðð€(òòPeople€v.€Boninóó€(1989)€47€Cal.3d€808,€835.)€€In€the€instant€situation,€anÐ ° Ðattorney€may:€(1)€avoid€seeing€any€ineffective€assistance€in€the€trial€representation€out€ofÐ ° Ðconcern€for€the€attorneyððs€reputation;€or€(2)€bend€over€backwards€to€find€ineffectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€(when€itððs€not€really€there)€in€order€to€help€a€client€to€whom€the€attorney€feelsÐ ° Ðobligated€because€the€client€lost€at€trial,€or€just€to€show€that€the€attorney€is€beingÐ ° Ðextremely€considerate€to€avoid€the€potential€conflict;€or€(3)€be€so€ððlocked€inðð€to€theÐ °  Ðattorneyððs€trial€strategy€that€the€attorney€fails€to€see€IAC€that€any€reasonably€experiencedÐ °  Ðarms„length€appellate€attorney€would€spot.€€€In€all€of€these€cases€there€is€a€conflict€ofÐ °  Ðinterest€between€the€client€and€the€attorneyððs€own€interests€and€motivations,€and,€asÐ °  Ðdiscussed€in€the€next€section€below,€there€may€also€be€a€violation€of€the€attorneyððs€ethicalÐ °  Ðobligation€to€provide€competent€representation.Ð °  ÐÌò òÐ  °  Ðà  àV.€€€€The€San€Diego€County€Bar€Association€has€issued€an€Ethics€OpinionÐ ° Ðholding€that€the€attorney€may€ethically€represent€in€a€current€case€(which€charges€aÐ ®þ Ðthree„strikes€prior)€a€client€whom€the€attorney€represented€at€the€prior,€provided:Ð ¬ü Ð(1)€the€client€waives€the€potential€conflict€of€interest;€and€(2)€if€the€attorneyÐ ªú Ðdiscovers€arguable€IAC€in€the€prior€the€attorney€must€then€withdraw€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðrepresentation.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¦ ö Ðó óÌà  àIn€preparing€these€materials€we€contacted€the€State€Bar€Ethics€Hotline,€but€theyÐ ¤ ô Ðwere€unable€to€refer€to€any€State€Bar€opinion€on€point.€€However,€the€San€Diego€BarÐ ¤ ô ÐAssociation€has€issued€an€opinion€which€seems€directly€relevant.Ð ¤ ô  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSan€Diego€County€Bar€Association€Ethics€Opinion€1995„1óó,€the€opinion€dealtÐ ¤ô  Ðwith€a€clearly€analogous€situationð!ð€counsel€had€represented€the€defendant€in€a€priorÐ ¤ô  Ðcriminal€case€which€resulted€in€a€strike€conviction,€and€now€counsel€wanted€to€represent€Ð ¤ô  Ðthe€defendant€in€a€new€case€in€which€the€earlier€case€was€charged€as€a€strike€prior.€€AÐ ¤ô  Ðcopy€of€Opinion€1995„1€is€attached€to€these€materials€as€an€appendix.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àThe€Opinion€noted€that€ð ðPrior€counselððs€effectiveness€[in€the€strike€prior]€may€beÐ ¤ô Ðan€issue,€thereby€creating€a€potential€conflict€interest.ðð€€Thus,€at€a€minimum,€counsel€hadÐ ¤ô Ðto€disclose€that€to€the€client€and€had€to€obtain€a€waiver€from€the€client.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àHowever,€once€the€representation€begins,€if€counsel€then€discovers€arguableÐ ¤ô Ðineffective€assistance,€the€Opinion€states€that€the€determination€that€the€priorÐ ¤ô Ðrepresentation€was€constitutionally€suspect€Ð ¤ô ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðInfect[s]€the€representation€with€issues€of€competence€thatÐ ¤ô Ðplace€unnecessary€burdens€on€counsel€and€needlesslyÐ ¤ô Ðcompromise€the€integrity€of€the€process,€without€regard€to€theÐ ¤ô Ðeffectiveness€of€the€[current]€representation.€€Therefore,Ð ¤ ô ÐAttorney€should€withdraw€from€or€decline€the€representation.ððФ!ô` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€Opinion€also€notes€that€Californiaððs€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,€rule€3„Ð ¤#ô Ð110(A)€states€that€a€lawyer€ð ðshall€not€intentionally,€recklessly,€or€repeatedly€fail€toÐ ¤$ô  Ðperform€legal€services€with€competence,ðð€and€the€Opinion€states€that€a€client€cannotÐ ¤%ô ! Ðwaive€the€duty€of€an€attorney€to€practice€competently.€€Given€the€policy€expressed€by€theÐ ¤&ô!" Ðcourts€(see€above)€that€it€is€ð ðuntenableðð€for€the€lawyer€in€the€current€case€to€argue€his/herÐ ¤'ô"# Ðincompetence€in€a€prior€case,€this€supports€the€Opinionððs€conclusion€that€the€attorneyÐ ¤(ô#$ Ðmust€withdraw€because€otherwise€his/her€current€representation€could€amount€toÐ ¤)ô$% Ðintentional€incompetence€in€trying€to€perform€the€untenable€act€of€arguing€his/her€ownÐ ¤*ô%& Ðincompetence€in€the€prior€proceeding.Ð ¤+ô&' ЇÌÌÌÌà  àò òVI.€€Conclusionó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThere€appears€to€be€obvious€wisdom€in€the€òòBaileyóó€courtððs€observation€that€anÐ ® þ Ðattorney€cannot€review€his€or€her€own€ineffective€assistance€with€the€same€dispassionateÐ ® þ Ðscrutiny€with€which€he/she€would€review€anotherððs.€€Thus€it€seems€wise€to€avoid€beingÐ ® þ Ðput€in€that€situation.€€However,€we€have€found€nothing€which€would€clearly€hold€that€itÐ ® þ  Ðviolates€an€attorneyððs€ethical€obligations€to€represent€the€same€client€at€trial€and€onÐ ®þ  Ðappeal.Ð ®þ  ÐÌà  àAlthough€there€is€probably€no€federal€or€state€constitutional€right€to€retainedÐ ®þ  Ðcounsel€of€choice€which€would€automatically€permit€such€dual€representation€where€thereÐ ®þ  Ðis€a€potential€conflict€of€interest,€the€fact€that€the€client€does€have€at€least€a€limitedÐ ®þ Ðconstitutional€right€to€retained€counsel€of€choice€means€courts€likely€will€tread€lightly€onÐ ®þ Ðimpinging€such€a€right€by€deciding€that€dual€representation€(where€the€client€is€willing€toÐ ®þ Ðwaive€the€conflict)€is€unethical.€€This€can€be€seen€in€the€Fourth€District.€Division€TwoððsÐ ®þ ÐMiscellaneous€Order€03„2€(supra).€€With€regard€to€òòappointedóó€counsel,€the€court,€as€did€theÐ ®þ ÐFirst€District€in€òòBaileyóó,€stated€that€the€trial€attorney€absolutely€should€not€be€appointed€onÐ ®þ Ðappeal.€€But€with€regard€to€òòretainedóó€counsel,€likely€in€deference€to€the€clientððs€potentialÐ ®þ Ðright€to€counsel€of€choice,€the€court€Order€simply€states€that€trial€counsel€is€ð ðdiscouragedððÐ ®þ Ðfrom€representing€the€client€on€appeal.Ð ®þ ÐÌà  àThe€San€Diego€Bar€Association€Opinion€(supra)€is€probably€the€best€compromise.€Ð ®þ ÐIt€indicates€that€if€the€client€waives€the€potential€conflict€of€interest€,€the€representation€isÐ ®þ Ðethical;€however,€if€the€attorney€then€goes€on€to€discover€arguable€ineffective€assistanceÐ ®þ Ðthe€attorney€should€then€withdraw€from€the€case.Ð ® þ ÐÌÌÌò òÌó ó