Conflictul de interese în reprezentarea a doi codefendanți
Advocate Elena was retained by two co-defendants, A and B, in a fraud case. A initially denied everything. During the investigation, A confessed and stated that B planned the fraud and received most of the money. B denies involvement and says A acted alone. The prosecutor offered A a plea agreement: a reduced sentence if A testifies against B. Elena continued to represent both clients. She advised A to accept the plea agreement and told B to remain silent and not to answer the prosecutor's questions. B later learned about Elena's advice to A and complained to the Bar Association. Elena says both clients consented to joint representation at the beginning and that she was trying to protect them both.
1. Does Elena have a conflict of interest, and can the clients' initial consent cure it?
Read the worked answer
Yes. A conflict of interest exists because A's plea agreement and testimony directly harm B's defence. A has an incentive to present B as the organiser in order to obtain a reduced sentence. B has an incentive to show that A acted alone. These are antagonistic defences in the same case. The clients' initial consent cannot cure a fundamental conflict that arises later, because consent must be informed and must cover the specific risk. At the start, neither client could foresee that A would confess and implicate B.
Elena's duty of loyalty is owed to each client separately. She cannot use information received from B to benefit A, and she cannot advise one client in a way that sacrifices the other. The joint retainer became impermissible once the plea offer and the confession created a direct clash. The Bar Association should assess the actual conflict, not only the formal existence of two mandates.
2. What must Elena do now, and can she continue to represent A alone?
Read the worked answer
Elena must promptly inform both clients of the conflict, stop acting in the joint mandate, and withdraw from at least one representation. The safer course is to withdraw from both and return the files, because she has received confidential information from each client. She must not disclose B's confidences to A or A's confidences to B. She must also explain the consequences to the court and ask for a reasonable delay so that new advocates can be retained.
She may continue for A alone only if B gives informed consent after being fully informed, and only if she can avoid using B's confidential information. In practice, that is difficult because the same fraud file and the same facts are involved. If she continues for A, she must not cross-examine B using information obtained in the joint mandate. If she cannot separate the information, she must withdraw from both.
3. What disciplinary consequences may follow, and what is the status of the clients' consent?
Read the worked answer
Elena may face disciplinary proceedings for violating the rules on conflicts of interest, loyalty and confidentiality. Possible sanctions include a warning, reprimand, fine or suspension from practice, depending on the gravity and whether she acted intentionally. The fact that she advised A to accept a plea while telling B to remain silent is particularly serious because it suggests she favoured one client over the other.
The clients' consent is not a complete defence. Consent is effective only when it is informed, specific and given after full disclosure of the risks, and when the conflict is not so fundamental that it undermines the integrity of the profession. A conflict between co-defendants in a criminal case is usually non-consentable. The Bar Association should also consider whether Elena must return fees for the conflicted representation and whether the court should be informed so that the fairness of the proceedings can be protected.