Lexplug logoLexplug

Sanford v. Commonwealth of Virginia

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
687 F. Supp. 2d 591 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, a lawyer is prohibited from representing multiple clients if there is a significant risk that the representation of one client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another, and this conflict cannot be waived by client consent if a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the representation under the circumstances.


Facts:

  • John Sanford, a 40-year-old mentally and physically disabled man, was a patient at the Medical College of Virginia (MCV) Hospital recovering from kidney removal surgery.
  • Following his surgery, Sanford exhibited episodes of delirium and hallucinations, which his family attributed to medications prescribed by MCV medical staff.
  • On December 24, 2006, MCV nursing staff summoned Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department (VCUPD) officers and a hospital security guard, Sammy Lancaster, to restrain a delirious Sanford.
  • VCUPD Officer Bailey and Lancaster physically seized Sanford, wrestled him to the floor, handcuffed him with metal cuffs, and held him in a prone (face-down) position.
  • Other VCUPD officers arrived and followed Officer Bailey's lead, as per departmental protocol, in maintaining the restraint.
  • A superior officer, Corporal Branch, arrived after Sanford was calm and ordered the other officers to keep Sanford restrained until stronger restraints could be brought.
  • While restrained, one or more nurses injected Sanford with Haldol, a sedative prescribed over the phone by Dr. Maiberger.
  • After being held in the prone, handcuffed position for approximately thirty minutes, Sanford was turned over and discovered to be deceased.

Procedural Posture:

  • The administrator of John Sanford’s estate and several relatives ('Plaintiffs') filed a civil rights and medical malpractice lawsuit against numerous VCU police officers and MCV medical personnel ('Defendants').
  • The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • During two separate pretrial conferences, the Court raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest for defense counsel, each of whom was representing multiple co-defendants.
  • Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel on the Basis of a Conflict of Interest.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a lawyer's concurrent representation of multiple co-defendants create a non-waivable conflict of interest requiring disqualification under Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 when the defendants have substantial discrepancies in their testimony, incompatible defense strategies, and differing settlement possibilities?


Opinions:

Majority - Payne, Senior District Judge

Yes. The representation of multiple co-defendants with incompatible defense strategies and conflicting testimony creates a non-waivable conflict of interest requiring disqualification under Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. The court identified numerous actual conflicts where the best defense for one client would be to inculpate another client represented by the same attorney. For the VCUPD defendants, conflicts existed between Police Chief Fuller and his subordinate officers regarding training adequacy, between the first-responding officer and those who arrived later who were following his lead, and between a supervising Corporal and the officers he ordered to maintain the restraint. For the MCV medical defendants, conflicts existed between a doctor whose diagnosis was contradicted by his own side's experts, between doctors and nurses regarding the administration of a drug one doctor had cautioned against, between a nursing supervisor and a nurse who violated policy, and between a doctor and a nurse who allegedly provided him with false information. Because a disinterested lawyer would advise against joint representation in these circumstances, the clients' consent was invalid, and the conflicts were non-waivable. Therefore, both defense counsel must be disqualified.



Analysis:

This opinion reinforces the court's supervisory duty to maintain the integrity of the legal profession by disqualifying counsel in cases of severe, non-waivable conflicts of interest. It highlights that client consent is not a panacea for conflicts, especially when co-defendants have mutually exclusive defenses, such as blaming one another for the alleged harm. The decision serves as a strong precedent that in complex litigation with multiple defendants, a unified defense strategy cannot come at the cost of sacrificing the best possible defense for each individual, thereby necessitating separate counsel to ensure undivided loyalty.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Sanford v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Sanford v. Commonwealth of Virginia