Georgian Bar Qualification Exam study materials
Georgian Bar Qualification Exam study resources

Joint Criminal Representation and a Former Client Conflict

Georgian Bar Qualification Exam · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Joint Criminal Representation and a Former Client Conflict

Advocate N. is appointed to represent co-defendants X and Y in a robbery case. At the first meeting, X tells N. that Y planned the robbery and that X only drove the car, but X does not want this disclosed. Y tells N. a different story: X planned it and threatened Y. N. also learns that X's former lawyer, now in the same firm, previously represented the victim in an unrelated civil claim. At trial, Y wants to plead guilty and testify against X in exchange for a reduced sentence. X insists on a joint defence and refuses separate counsel. N. is unsure whether to continue, withdraw, or disclose X's statement to Y. The court asks N. to confirm conflict status before the plea hearing.

1. May N. continue representing both X and Y? What should N. do about the conflict?

Read the worked answer

N. may represent co-defendants only if their interests are compatible, there is no material conflict, and both give informed consent after full disclosure. Here the interests conflict directly. X says Y planned the robbery; Y says X planned it and threatened Y. Each account is adverse to the other. X has given confidential information that could help Y, and Y has given information that could help the prosecution against X. Y's plan to plead guilty and testify against X makes the conflict actual and acute, not merely speculative.

N. cannot advance Y's defence without using or being influenced by X's confidences, and cannot cross-examine Y on behalf of X without risking disclosure of those confidences. The joint representation must end. N. should withdraw from representing at least one defendant and ask the court to appoint separate counsel for the other. N. should explain the conflict to both clients without revealing one client's confidences to the other. If the court is considering whether to accept the plea, N. should confirm that each defendant has independent counsel before proceeding.

2. What must N. do with X's statement that Y planned the robbery? May N. disclose it to Y or the court?

Read the worked answer

X's statement is protected by client confidentiality. N. may not disclose it to Y, the prosecution, or the court without X's informed consent. The duty of confidentiality continues even after the representation ends and even if X's account is damaging to Y. The fact that Y wants to testify against X does not authorise N. to reveal X's statement.

N. may use the statement only in X's defence, and only in ways that do not betray Y. If N. continues for X, N. must not cross-examine Y using X's confidential information. If N. continues for Y, N. must not use X's statement to attack X. The safest course is withdrawal from one representation. N. may tell the court only that a conflict exists and that N. cannot continue for both, without disclosing the content of the confidences. If X insists on a joint defence, N. must decline and explain why.

3. Does the former lawyer's prior representation of the victim in an unrelated civil claim disqualify N. or the firm?

Read the worked answer

A former-client conflict arises when the new matter is substantially related to the former representation and the lawyer possesses confidential information relevant to the new matter. The prior civil claim was unrelated to the robbery. That fact alone does not automatically disqualify N. or the firm from representing X or Y. The victim's interests in the unrelated civil claim are not necessarily adverse to X in the robbery case, and the firm may not have obtained information material to the robbery.

However, the firm must screen the former lawyer from the robbery case and ensure that no confidential information about the victim is used. If the former lawyer obtained information about the victim's credibility, finances, or account that is material to the robbery, a conflict may arise and the firm may need to withdraw. The burden is on the firm to establish that no relevant confidences were received. The court should ask for a written conflict check, but the primary ethical duty is N.'s own independent judgment and loyalty to the current client.