COM 0603.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a ~ Duano W.H. Penq, Eeq. September 17, 1993 Page S ei~oultaneouely rspreeent a State employee in • civil mortar end while inveatigatinq end prosecuting him in a criminal matter ae long ne no prejudice resulted in the criminal matWr end the Depeccment's staff vas assigned in ouch a May as to etford the wcployea independent counsel and representation in the c!v!1 mottos. The 6upreane Court eteted in ajattenhofi, pupre, that the Finwaii Code of Proiessionnl Responsibility caanot 'mechanically' De npplled Lo the 1?ttornay General's office due to that office~a •mendeted role in our 2aga1 ayatem•. Ida at 603, Boi P.2d SS1, The Coact in ]clattenhoff went on to eay that •[w]s raaognies, as do the majority of the stereo, that-due to the multiple duties statutorily ls~posed upon.the 11G's office, the ethioal rules for privets law firms are not nacaseerily pppllceDle, in all these, to the AG's office.' I.S~ et 604, 801 P.2d at 551. The Court further atetedi Hs hold that the 11G may represent a state employee in clvii mettexa while investigatlnq end proaoautinq him in criminal matters, so long as the atelf o! the AO enn be assigned in each a mar?ner ae to afford independent legal counsel sad representation !n the oiril matter, and so long as suoh repsesentation does not result In prejudice in the criminal mottos to ohs person reproaanted. et 605, 801 P.2d at 552. ~battanhoff appears to velidato screeniaq aeasures where a large government agency hen discernable segments. lu long sa these segments operate as nearly eutono~mous paste, the entire agency will not ba diequalifiad provided that the parts continue to operate eeperately end there is no pra~udice to the clients involved. lie are without adequate fectunl information upon which to conclade that your Department has adequate "discernable segments' which oould allow the Trial aivlslon to rspreeent the Defendsnt in the federal lawsuit while a eeparete division opposes that Defendant in the workers' oompensation matter. lour letter states that the ettornay in your Department xho !s handling the workers' ' compensation eleim works in an office building eeparete from yours. However, your telophona conversation with Norge Murphy gave us a different impression (i.e., that ell deputies in your Department, except for those in the Family Support Division, ere housed in City hell), we are, in any event, without information as to the relative physical and organisational separation between your Department's trial division And the division handling the workers' compensation case,