Thank you, CGray123, for the on point source! I do understand that Ms Taylor has addressed the fact that there are conflicts of interest and we do have documentation that she has withdrawn from a parent's case.
I tried to read and understand your referenced Rule 1.7 and it appears she did withdraw from the parent's case, timely, as she committed to representing the person who is arrested of murdering their child.
But in Rule 1.7 I found a reference to apply Rule 1.9 for those conflicts of interests concerning former clients. Of interest:
RULE 1.9: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS
- (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed
consent, confirmed in writing.
(BBM) I would consider that 'a substantially related matter' would include a parent/child relationship and its connection to representing the accused murderer of that parent's child.
So, as I understand, wouldn't that former client (parent of child) have to give their informed consent (as well as BK) for Ms Taylor to represent the accused also?
And, if so, do we know that the parent has consented and signed a legal document stating such?
My concern is not that Ms Taylor is not, nor would not, do her best to put forth the best defense for BK. My concern lies in giving him any opportunity or loopholes, whatsoever, to contest the legality of the trial should he be found guilty.
My limited interpretation and moo.