State of Iowa v. Lavelle Lonelle McKinley
860 N.W.2d 874, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 28 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prior representation of prosecution witnesses by different attorneys in the same public defender's office on unrelated and concluded matters does not create an actual conflict or a serious potential for conflict that justifies disqualifying a defendant's current appointed counsel.
Facts:
- Lavelle McKinley was charged with first-degree murder.
- The district court appointed attorneys Jennifer Larson and Heather Lauber from the Des Moines adult public defender’s office to represent McKinley.
- Larson and Lauber discovered that other attorneys in their office had previously represented three potential State witnesses—Cheyenne Rouse, Heather Hickman, and Wayne Manuel—on unrelated criminal matters.
- The prior representations of these witnesses had all concluded months or years before McKinley was charged with murder.
- Neither Larson nor Lauber had ever personally represented these witnesses, had not reviewed their case files, and implemented screening measures to prevent access to any confidential information.
- McKinley expressly stated his desire for Larson and Lauber to continue representing him and acquiesced in any potential conflict.
- Two of the former clients, Rouse and Hickman, refused to waive any attorney-client privilege or consent to Larson and Lauber representing McKinley.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Iowa charged Lavelle McKinley with first-degree murder in the Iowa district court.
- McKinley's appointed public defenders requested a hearing and a ruling from the district court on a potential conflict of interest.
- After a hearing, the district court concluded a conflict existed and disqualified all attorneys from the Des Moines adult public defender’s office.
- McKinley applied to the Supreme Court of Iowa for discretionary interlocutory review of the disqualification order.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa granted discretionary review.
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 conflict of interest requiring disqualification exist when a defendant's appointed public defenders work in the same office as other attorneys who previously represented prosecution witnesses in separate, unrelated, and concluded matters?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, Justice.
No. The potential conflict of interest shown under these circumstances did not justify the disqualification of the attorneys. Once an attorney is appointed, they should not be removed absent a factual and legal basis, such as an actual conflict or a serious potential for conflict. Here, no 'concurrent conflict' exists under Rule 32:1.7 because the witnesses are former, not current, clients, and the attorneys' representation of McKinley is not 'materially limited.' Furthermore, the matters are not 'substantially related' under Rule 32:1.9 because no confidential information from the prior representations would be used; impeaching witnesses with their publicly available criminal history is not a breach of confidence. The lack of temporal overlap (successive vs. concurrent representation) and attorney overlap (different lawyers in the office) significantly mitigates any risk of divided loyalties, making disqualification an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Concurring - Waterman, Justice
No. While the majority reaches the correct result, it missed an opportunity to settle the recurring legal issue of whether an individual public defender's conflict of interest is automatically imputed to the entire office. The answer should be no. A public defender's office is not a 'firm' for the purposes of automatic conflict imputation under Rule 32:1.10 because public defenders are salaried state employees without the shared financial incentives of a private law firm. Instead, they should be treated as 'government lawyers' under Rule 32:1.11, which does not require automatic imputation. Adopting a case-by-case approach with proper screening measures is a more practical and appropriate standard than automatically disqualifying an entire office.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong presumption in favor of an indigent defendant's right to continuity of appointed counsel in Iowa, which can only be overcome by a showing of an actual or serious potential conflict. It narrows the circumstances for disqualifying a public defender's office by clarifying that successive representation of a witness by a different lawyer in the office on an unrelated matter does not, by itself, create a conflict. This ruling promotes stability in the attorney-client relationship for indigent defendants and distinguishes this scenario from more serious conflicts involving concurrent representation or representation by the same attorney. The concurrence highlights that the broader, more systemic question of whether a public defender's office should be treated as a single 'firm' for conflict imputation purposes remains unresolved, suggesting future litigation on the issue.
