Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Mark Wheat was charged along with numerous codefendants with participating in a far-flung drug distribution conspiracy. Over a period of several years, many thousands of pounds of marijuana were transported from Mexico and other locations to southern California. Wheat acted primarily as an intermediary in the distribution ring; he received and stored large shipments of marijuana at his home, then distributed the marijuana to customers in the region. Also charged in the conspiracy were Juvenal Gomez-Barajas and Javier Bravo, who were represented in their criminal proceedings by attorney Eugene Iredale. Gomez-Barajas was tried first and was acquitted on drug charges overlapping with those against Wheat. To avoid a second trial on other charges, Gomez-Barajas offered to plead guilty to tax evasion and illegal importation of merchandise. At the commencement of Wheat’s trial, the District Court had not accepted the plea; Gomez-Barajas was thus free to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. Bravo decided to forgo trial and plead guilty to one count of transporting approximately 2,400 pounds of marijuana from Los Angeles to a residence controlled by Victor Vidal. At the conclusion of Bravo’s guilty plea proceedings on August 22, 1985, Iredale notified the District Court that he had been contacted by Wheat and had been asked to try Wheat’s case as well. The Government objected to Wheat’s proposed substitution on the ground that Iredale’s representation of Gomez-Barajas and Bravo created a serious conflict of interest. The Government’s position was premised on two possible conflicts. First, if the plea arrangement for Gomez-Barajas were rejected by the court, Gomez-Barajas would be free to withdraw the plea and stand trial, and Wheat would likely be called as a witness for the Government. Second, the Government believed that a portion of the marijuana delivered by Bravo eventually was transferred to Wheat, and it contacted Iredale and asked that Bravo be made available as a witness to testify against Wheat. In response, Wheat emphasized his right to have counsel of his own choosing and the willingness of Gomez-Barajas, Bravo, and Wheat to waive the right to conflict-free counsel. Wheat argued that the circumstances posited by the Government that would create a conflict for Iredale were highly speculative. After hearing argument from each side, the District Court ruled that an irreconcilable conflict of interest existed that could not be waived and denied Wheat’s request to substitute Iredale as attorney of record. Wheat proceeded to trial with his original counsel and was convicted of conspiracy to possess more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute and five counts of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Wheat’s convictions. Because the Courts of Appeals have expressed substantial disagreement about when a district court may override a defendant’s waiver of his attorney’s conflict of interest, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On August 4, 1980, respondents, a class of children suffering from emotional and mental handicaps, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against petitioners, the Governor and other officials of the State of Idaho responsible for their education and treatment. The complaint alleged deficiencies in both educational programs and health care services that violated the Education of the Handicapped Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and provisions of the Idaho Constitution and statutes. It sought injunctive relief along with costs and attorney’s fees. Charles Johnson of the Idaho Legal Aid Society served as next friend for the class. The organization made no fee agreements with class members because it was prohibited from representing clients able to pay. Shortly after petitioners filed their answer, the parties reached a partial settlement on the educational services claims in October 1981 under which each side would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. Negotiations on the treatment claims broke down. This led to cross-motions for summary judgment, class certification, discovery, and preparation for a spring 1983 trial. In March 1983, one week before trial, petitioners presented respondents with a new settlement proposal. As respondents themselves characterize it, the proposal offered virtually all of the injunctive relief they had sought in their complaint. Petitioners' offer included a provision for a waiver by respondents of any claim to fees or costs. Respondents’ counsel had been instructed by the Idaho Legal Aid Society to reject any settlement offer conditioned upon a waiver of fees. Johnson ultimately determined that his ethical obligation to his clients mandated acceptance of the proposal. The parties conditioned the waiver on approval by the District Court. Johnson then filed a written motion requesting the District Court to approve the settlement except for the provision on costs and attorney's fees. He also asked to allow respondents to present a bill of costs and fees for consideration by the court. The District Court evaluated the waiver in the context of the entire settlement and rejected the ethical underpinnings of Johnson's argument. Accordingly, the District Court approved the settlement and denied the motion to submit a costs bill. When respondents appealed from the order denying attorney's fees and costs, petitioners filed a motion requesting the District Court to suspend or stay their obligation to comply with the substantive terms of the settlement. The Court of Appeals granted two emergency motions for stays requiring enforcement of the substantive terms of the consent decree pending the appeal. After ordering preliminary relief, it invalidated the fee waiver and left standing the remainder of the settlement. It then instructed the District Court to make its own determination of the fees that are reasonable and remanded for that limited purpose. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits.