People v. Cole - 2017 IL 120997, 422 Ill. Dec. 758, 104 N.E.3d 325

Rule:

With regard to the public defender's office, the Illinois Supreme Court has declined to adopt a per se rule finding a conflict of interest where different assistant public defenders represent codefendants in a case. Consequently, with regard to the public defender's office, a case-by-case inquiry is contemplated whereby it is determined whether any facts peculiar to the case preclude the representation of competing interests by separate members of the public defender's office. The mere fact that codefendants in a case are represented by separate members of the public defender's office does not violate Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7. 

Facts:

Defendant Salimah Cole was charged in a 16-count indictment with 6 counts of first degree murder, 2 counts of armed robbery with a firearm, 5 counts of aggravated kidnapping, 1 count of aggravated arson, and 2 counts of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The charges stemmed from the September 30, 2015, shooting, robbery, and kidnapping of La Prentis Cudjo and the robbery and kidnapping of Charles Morgan. Ashley Washington, Allen Whitehead, Zacchaeus Reed, Jr., Julian Morgan, and Brianna Sago were also charged in connection with those crimes. At the May 10, 2016, court date, Cole informed the trial court that she was not able to afford private counsel. The trial court stated that it would appoint the public defender to represent Cole. Contemnor Amy P. Campanelli, the public defender of Cook County, then asked the court not to appoint the office of the public defender to represent Cole. Campanelli asked for leave of court to file a notice of intent to refuse appointment and to ask for appointment of counsel other than the public defender. Campanelli stated that she actually was refusing the appointment. Campanelli informed the court that the public defender could not represent Cole because there was a conflict of interest due to the codefendants in the case. Campanelli explained that four of Cole's five codefendants were charged with the exact same offenses as Cole. After considering the matter, the trial court appointed the public defender of Cook County to represent Cole, over Campanelli's objection. Campanelli asked the court to hold her in friendly contempt and to impose a nominal sanction so that she could seek appellate review of the court's decision. Campanelli then filed a notice of intent to refuse appointment and to request appointment of counsel other than the public defender of Cook County. In her notice, Campanelli argued that every client has a right to be represented by conflict-free counsel and that concurrent conflicts of interest are prohibited by Rule 1.7 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010). Campanelli noted that Rule 1.7 provided that conflicts arise whenever the interests of one client are directly adverse to the interests of another client or whenever the representation of a client is materially limited. Based upon Rule 1.7, Campanelli stated that she could not accept appointment to represent Cole when she was already representing five other codefendants. Campanelli indicated that she also had moved to withdraw from representing codefendants Whitehead, Reed Jr., Morgan, and Sago, due to concurrent conflicts with one another and with codefendant Washington. Consequently, Campanelli refused to accept appointment to represent Cole. Campanelli also noted that the Counties Code (55 ILCS 5/3-4006 (West 2016)) allows a court to appoint counsel other than the public defender if the appointment of the public defender would prejudice the defendant. The trial court pointed out that it had not made a finding that appointment of the public defender would prejudice the defendant. Campanelli conceded that the trial court had not made a finding of prejudice but stated she had given the trial court enough testimony that she would be in conflict of interest if forced to represent Cole. The trial court found Campanelli's refusal to be without basis, as there was no prejudice to Cole if Campanelli accepted the appointment. The trial court therefore ordered that Campanelli was in direct civil contempt for her willful failure to obey a direct order of the court. The trial court imposed a sanction consisting of a fine of $250 per day until such time as Campanelli purged herself of direct civil contempt by accepting appointment as counsel for defendant Cole or until she was otherwise discharged by due process of law.

Issue:

Did the mere fact that codefendants in a case were represented by separate members of the public defender's office violate Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that an order directing Campanelli to represent Cole when other public defenders represented codefendants did not offend Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.10 because good law held one public defender's conflict of interest did not apply to the entire office. Ill. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7 did not bar the office's representation of multiple defendants in one prosecution because a case-by-case inquiry was required, appointing the office did not make it one entity for conflict of interest purposes, and a public defender's supervision of assistants did not override an assistant's loyalty to a client. Campanelli’s statements that a direct conflict barred her zealous representation did not make appointing her an abuse of discretion because she gave no substantive basis for her refusal and was not ordered to divulge confidential communications.