Can an attorney represent co-defendants? 81 Answers as of November 08, 2011

One attorney can represent co-defendants but it is usually not a good idea. There are potential "conflict of interest" issues if the state wishes to treat the defendants differently or wishes to use the testimony of one against the other. If an attorney wishes to represent co-defendants the court will make certain that the co-defendants fully understand the potential conflicts.

Generally not but if both agree to waive conflicts it may be allowed. It is up to the judge to decide if there is a problem.

Generally no, but they can waive a conflict I they chose to and ask that the attorney represent them both... However the attorney will likely bill for two cases anyway so it might be best to seek two diffrent attorneys to begin with.

Yes, if both agree to waive any conflict of interest the lawyer might have.

If the two people have the same interest and there is no issue as to one blaming the other, it could be possible. Most attorneys would decline to enter into such a dual representation.

In certain circumstances, the same attorney can represent two different defendants. However, if the two people are blaming each other for the incident, that attorney cannot represent both persons as it creates a conflict of interest. For example, if two men get into a brawl and both claim the other started the fight, the same attorney would not be able to represent both men. In doing so, that attorney would not be advocating in each defendant's best interest (i.e. because that attorney would be helping "the other side"). Most defense attorneys are happy to refer a colleague to defendants in this type of situation.

Unless it is a minor case with no possible conflict of interest most likely the court will not permit it. This sounds like a classic conflict of interest in that one of them most be primarily at fault.

It is usually not a good idea since there is an inherent conflict of interest. Both parties would have to consent to the same attorney representing but if it went to trial a judge could order two attorneys.

Can represent both people as long as there is not a "conflict of interests". The better practice is for the attorney to get each person's permission after explaining that there may be conflicts in each of their defenses, etc. You probably need to furnish more information in order to get an accurate answer.

Yes, but it's unwise and frowned upon by the courts. A written disclosure and waiver should be signed by all parties.

No. That would be a conflict of interest, either real or perceived.

Representing co-defendants is generally a conflict of interest. However, if both people agree to waive the conflict, there are some circumstances where the same attorney can represent both. It is advisable to get independent legal advice on whether you should even waive the conflict.

The same lawyer can represent both if there is not a conflict of interest or if there is a minor conflict and both parties waive the conflict.

When there are co-defendants in a case there is a chance that there interests may not be the same. When there is a conflict between the two interests then one attorney could not best represent one client without harming the interest of the other. It is never a good idea to have one attorney for more than one defendant in a case. However, it is possible if both defendants sign a statement outlining the possible conflicts and agreeing to one attorney representing both. Most competent attorneys will not represent two defendants in the same case.

Conceivably, but not likely. I certainly would not as it is an unavoidable conflict in my opinion UNLESS it was like a boxing match/fight club sort of thing i.e. the only argument is that it was consensual.

Yes, if both defendants execute a waiver of any conflict of interest that may exist.

If there are no conflicts between the two people, and with the written consent of both people, one attorney can represent both defendants.

No. There would be a conflict of interest.

If two people were fighting with each other than one attorney cannot represent both. It would be considered a conflict. The attorney could not effectively represent one individual without jeopardizing the interest of the other individual. If the two individuals were fighting others, an attorney may be able to represent both (although not recommended); however, the two clients would have to be on equal footing in all respects. For example, they could not be able to claim that the other was more culpable or that the other stated the fight. Basically they must be able to raise defenses that apply equally to both.

Yes, if both are properly advised of the potential for a conflict and waive the conflict.

Yes, but they must both sign a conflict of interest waiver.

An attorney cannot represent two codefendants if there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. There are times when they can represent two persons but it is a factual situation as to whether it is proper.

Yes, it's possible, but not preferable. The reason is there is an incipient conflict of interest between the two people who were arrested; meaning that in many instances either one may blame the other for the injury or damages done. While that may be the actual case, the fact is that when you only have one attorney between two people and they are blaming each other at any point in the proceedings, which client does the attorney choose to represent at which point in time? That is where the conflict arises. Of course, the parties may sign waivers of the conflict of interest, but then again, what happens when another unforeseen conflict arises later? Therefore, it is always best to have only one attorney represent one Defendant at a time. Good luck.

It is possible but not a good idea. If there is a conflict of interest between defendants, they each need their own attorney. Even if they have the same defense, a conflict could develop.

When you have co-defendants with a conflict of interest they should retain separate counsel. That is because they have opposing defenses and each attorney can argue that their client is innocent or acted in self-defense.

Yes, one lawyer can represent two co-defendants in the same case as long as both agree to waive any conflict of interest there might be. If the two co-defendants potentially have claims against each other or want to blame each other than a conflict of interest will exist. The better practice as an attorney would be not to represent both defendants. Hope that helps you out.

Normally, this would present a conflict of interest for the attorney. The conflict can be waived by the two defendants after being fully informed.

No, because of the conflict - How do I say "A" is innocent and "B" is innocent simultaneously? The court appoints another lawyer for "B"

Yes they can but sometimes that's not a real good idea (especially if there's some indication that both participants are going to start pointing fingers at each other). If the codefendants' interests are not adverse, one attorney can represent both providing the attorney makes both parties fully aware of the potential conflict and waive the conflict in writing.

Yes as long as they are not blaming the other person for the fight. It is usually not a good idea to represent more than one person in a criminal matter; but it can be done as long as the two defendants are not pointing the finger at each other.

Probably not. If the two people were fighting each other, defintely not. The problem with representing two folks is they may have contrasting interests.

Only if there is no conflict of interest, or the parties waive the conflict. It's unusual though.

On a case that won't be dismissed at the first court appearance, one attorney representing two or more co-defendants is almost always a bad idea. Chances are great that the attorney will put one co-defendant's interests above those of another; it's almost inevitable. Chances are event greater that one co-defendant will believe the attorney has put another co-defendant's interests above his own (even if it hasn't happened). The only rational reason for agreeing to such an arrangement is money. For example, rather than charge $10,000 per co-defendant, the attorney might charge $7,500 each: each co-defendant saves 25 percent, and the lawyer grosses 50 percent more. When money is the motive, bad consequences often follow. Bottom line: don't do it. Hire separate lawyers. Pay the extra 25 percent. It will be money well spent.

If there is not a conflict of interest or possible conflict.

Yes but should not.

An attorney can represent co-defendants, but it does present some ethical challenges. Both defendants would have to agree to it and sign a waiver for conflict of interest purposes. It would also possibly limit the defense as obviously one couldn't be blaming it on the other one for example. Thoroughly discuss the matter with some attorneys before making that decision.

An attorney is permitted to do so but only under very narrow circumstances.

One lawyer may represent two co-defendants. That representation, however, would have to include disclosure of a potential conflict of interest for the lawyer. The clients would need to execute a waiver of conflict. I bleive the waiver, however, is still subject to the approval of the Court. It's highy UNadvisable to have the same lawyer.

Technically, they can if both parties sign a waiver of any conflict of interest. If either is maintaining a defense that implicates the other however, it is almost impossible to represent both, even with a waiver, and some judges will not allow it in any situation.

Ordinarily, each person would have their own attorney, since they each would have different legal defenses possible. If, for some reason, they either have the same defense and/or waive any conflict of interest, then the same attorney can represent both. It really depends on the facts of the case and what the level of conflict is.

If counsel is retained [not appointed] and if a written waiver is filed, signed by both defendants.

It can be done with a written waiver, but it is not the best practice due to the potential/likely ethical problem of the Conflict of Interest.

Yes, an attorney can represent both parties, but the better practice is for them to have separate lawyers.

It creates a conflict of interest. Each defendant would have to waive the conflict and the court would have to allow it. I do not recommend that co-defendants, especially in a case like this, have the same attorney. Each would want an attorney to represent only his/her interests, regardless of any one else's position. It could potentially create real problems, and ultimately the attorney could end up not being able to represent either defendant. Most attorneys know better than to do this.

The short answer is no. An attorney has a conflict of interest if he represents more than one party that is being charged out of the same offense. There are some minor ways around these rules but it is in your best interest to seek your own counsel.

It is generally not advisable for one attorney to represent two co-defendants.

Technically yes, but usually not a good idea. Conflicts usually arise when assessing levels of culpability, among a variety of other issues. Although perhaps more cost effective, it's best for each party to have separate representation.

Yes, an attorney can represent both if there is no conflict. In certain cases, conflict can be waived. However, if the case goes to trial, it may be required to have 2 attorneys.

It's not a good idea and is very frowned upon. Technically, if both clients signed waivers of conflict and confidentiality then one attorney could represent both parties; but due to the clear conflict of interest and ethical issues that are raised, it is better if both parties have separate counsel to represent them.

Not unless he or she wants to lose his or her license to practice law. The problem here is that an attorney in this situation cannot represent both clients zealously. And if the interests of these two clients are not perfectly aligned, both in fact and from the point of view of both of the people involved, such an attorney would find himself in an untenable situation, because he won't be able to avoid having one of the clients be mad at him. It might theoretically be possible to have the clients waive the conflict of interest in writing, after full disclosure of the risks inherent in such a situation. However, I think most prudent attorneys do their best to avoid these situations, because there are just too many ways for them to go wrong. I would recommend that each of these people get their own attorney, and proceed to do the best they can to protect their own interests.

I would think not, because a lawyer would probably have to ask some question to protect one of the defendants which might negatively impact the other defendant.

Probably not if there is a strong likelihood that doing so could present a conflict of interest (Person A claims that he was attacked by Person B. Person B claims that he was attacked by Person A. You wouldn't want the same attorney to stand before a jury and argue against himself). I have represented co-defendants where there is not a likely conflict of interest, as long as both defendants are advised of the possible risks and they both sign conflict waivers. The conflict waiver must be approved by the judge and the attorney must immediately withdraw if such a conflict arises.

It can happen, but not always a good idea. It would depend upon the nature of the crime and the potential defenses. If a defense that one defendant raises might be in conflict to the defense of the other (like "I didn't do it, he did it"), then there is a clear conflict of interest, making the defense of both defendants by the same attorney, not possible due to conflict of interest. The best thing to do is meet with an attorney and review the facts of the case.

Not a good idea, because one defendant might blame the other. Conflict of interests.

For purposes of the preliminary hearing, assuming that there are no adversarial defenses and both clients waive a conflict, then it is technically OK. At trial, however this is never appropriate and each defendant should have their own attorney representing their interests even if both clients find there is no conflict. Having said that, sometimes there is not enough information by the time that the case goes to a preliminary hearing for a full investigation to determine whether there is a conflict. To best protect the clients, each defendant should have their own attorney from the beginning of the case.

Not without a knowing and voluntary waiver of the inherent conflict in doing so. One popular defense is the SODI defense (some other dude did it). That other guy might be one's co-defendant. Therefore, it is unwise for a defendant to share an attorney with a co-defendant unless there is a unified defense theory. Stated another way, both defendants must agree on the facts and the case theory. A classic example would be "I wasn't there but if I was I acted in self-defense. Such contradictions tend to drive jurors to vote guilty. It is a much better strategy to have two attorneys work together to present a united front before the jury.

If the lawyer can represent to the court that the duel representation will not limit either client or create a conflict and both defendant's agree. This is rarely done however. Usually there is a material conflict.

Yes with a waiver of conflict of interest.

If there is a written waiver of any conflict of interests and the Judge approves dual representation, then yes.

While under some circumstances it is possible it is seldom a good idea. Each person will want their lawyer to be focused on what is best for them, not the other person being represented.

Only if all defendants acknowledge it is a conflict of interest and that all defendants waive any conflict of interest.

It is tecnically a "conflict" to represent both parties. That being said, Attorneys do it anyway. Make sure both parties are advised of the conflict and a good lawyer will have a signed waiver in the file

Technically, yes. As long as the waives the conflict of interest. Practically, very unwise for both client and attorney.

There may be an inherent conflict of interest with a situation like this, so while an attorney may represent both defendants as long as the judge is satisfied that both defendants understand the risks, it may prove to be legally impossible depending on the defenses.

Yes but it is not generally a good idea because there may be a conflict of interest. At the very least the defendants should waive the conflict on the record in open court.

Yes but never a good idea due to possibility of conflicting defenses

Yes one attorney can, but the matter must be carefully screen from both defendant's perspectives, to make sure there is no conflict. For example, assume that one defendant may want to testify and the other not (and vice versa). Does that put something into evidence that hurts the non-testifying defendant? An attorney must be careful because each defendant deserves their own "conflict-free" counsel. Written waivers must be signed by each defendant and the judge has a duty to inquire as well.

Rarely a good idea as often one needs to point at the other, BUT if that is not the case, you are allowed to waive the conflict and one atty can represent both guys (assuming they were on the same side in this fight).

That would technically depend on whether there's any potential conflict of interest (if one client's defense might incriminate the other). Certainly, it happens, and sometimes everything works out just fine, but it is a practice better avoided for all concerned.