Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

2,162 characters extracted

—

THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY RIDGEWAY COUNTY COURT TOMSKIPETSKI5, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEWISMEDVEDEVA, in his official capacity as Chief of the Palmer Police Department, PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees. No. CCRC-AP-1347 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. jedistormtrooper0625 The Firm Mr. Dannlabs The Firm FOR THE DEFENDANT: Mr. Commissioner_Jason, Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney ORDER BEFORE spencernixon (Presiding), LewisFPowellJr, and NateLMarshall, County Judges. PER CURIAM. Appellants have submitted a motion to disqualify counsel for the appellees, Commissioner_Jason. Appellant argues that a conflict of interest has occurred between appellee and Commissioner_Jason. According to appellant, Mr. Jason serves as a member of the high command for the Palmer Police Department and as an Assistant District Attorney for the Office of the District Attorney. Appellant claims that if Mr. Jason is permitted to continue as counsel for appellees, proceedings would not occur in a “fair and just manner.” We disagree. Under the Ridgeway Code of Legal Ethics, a conflict of interest occurs only when an attorney’s representation of their client could reasonably be of adverse effect to another client in the same or separate matter, or if there is a significant risk that the attorney’s representation of the client could be limited as a result of the attorney’s responsibilities or relationship with another client, a previous client, a third person, or by the attorney’s own interests. § 1.6. Here, we do not find any reason to believe Mr. Jason’s representation of the appellees presents a conflict of interest. In fact, if appellant is correct in asserting that Mr. Jason is indeed a member of the Palmer Police Department’s high command, then it seems all the more logical that a member of the Palmer Police Department’s high command represent the Department itself in order to further the Department’s interests. Appellants have not demonstrated that Mr. Jason’s representation of appellees would create a legitimate conflict of interest. Appellant’s motion to disqualify counsel for the appellee is therefore denied. So ordered.

1347_DisqualificationOrder.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record