Could a public defender's office represent an accused person by blaming former clients for the crime?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A public defender's office represented a homicide defendant. Its investigation identified three former clients as possible perpetrators. The office held confidential information relevant to accusing at least one of them; another former client's drug history might also matter to a diminished-capacity defense.
The committee said former DR 4-101 protected those clients' confidences and secrets. A zealous defense would likely require allegations that former clients committed the homicide or supplied illegal drugs, intruding into protected information. While the committee recognized that informed former-client consent could permit disclosure in some situations, it viewed that consent as unlikely here and required the office to withdraw absent consent.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.
Common questions
Q: Was the conflict based solely on having represented the other people before?
A: No. The committee focused on protected former-client information that the current defense would likely have to use.
Q: Could informed consent change the result?
A: The opinion recognized informed former-client consent as a possible route in principle, but found it unlikely on these facts and required withdrawal without it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former DR 4-101 to the public defender office's former-client information and discussed the duty of zealous representation under Canon 7. It cited Opinions 88-2 and 88-7 on consent and adverse witness examination.
Citations and references
Former Vermont disciplinary rules:
- DR 4-101.
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinions 88-2 and 88-7.
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 88-06: Former client's reputation evidence
- Vermont Ethics Op. 88-07: Former juvenile client as witness
Source
- Landing page: VBA public defender opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 92-08
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1992. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace