Conflicts of interest can take a variety of forms and can crop up at any point during, and even prior to, a representation. Some conflicts result from the concurrent representation of two parties with conflicting interests, or, as was the situation leading to the recent reversal of Charles Schwarz’s conviction in connection with the assault on Abner Louima,[1]� from a conflict between an attorney’s personal interests and those of his client. Other conflicts, with unfortunate results both for the criminal defense lawyer and his or her client, can arise before a representation even begins, from information obtained during the course of an interview with a prospective client, even where the attorney does not take on that representation. The American Bar Association recently adopted revisions to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that attempt to provide a framework for limiting conflicts arising from interviews with prospective clients.[2]�
Among other provisions, the new Rule contemplates that an attorney who obtains confidential information from a potential client can be screened from the remainder of his firm to avoid disqualification of the entire firm. Despite the salutary effects of this new Rule, attorneys practicing in New York are governed not by the Model Rules, but by the Code of Professional Responsibility, which recognizes screening only in cases involving government attorneys. New York courts have been reluctant to endorse screening, as was most recently demonstrated by Judge Pauley’s decision last month in Mitchell v. Metropolitan Life Ins.[3]� Courts have been particularly unimpressed by screening in small collegial settings such as those in which most criminal attorneys practice.