State Of Washington v. James Lee O'neil, Jr., 198 Wash. App. 537

Defendant James O'Neil was charged (after amendment) with second-degree assault, a third-strike offense exposing him to life without parole; he was represented by ACA Division attorney Edwin Aralica.
O'Neil moved for rearraignment alleging ineffective assistance by prior counsel; the State sought to interview Haydee Vargas, an ACA attorney who handles arraignments and is supervised by Aralica.
O'Neil objected, arguing Vargas as a State witness would create a conflict for Aralica under RPC 1.7 and that Aralica should be allowed to withdraw; the trial court authorized the State to interview Vargas and denied the withdrawal.
On review the court considered that Aralica supervises Vargas’s arraignment work and retains input on promotion/discipline, creating supervisory ties relevant to conflict analysis.
The appellate court concluded the supervisory relationship creates a significant risk Aralica’s representation would be materially limited if Vargas is a State witness, and that the trial court should have applied the necessary-witness analysis to Vargas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aralica must withdraw if Vargas (his subordinate) is a State witness	O'Neil: supervisory relationship creates a personal-interest conflict under RPC 1.7 requiring withdrawal	State: only an interview so far; no duty to withdraw now; withdrawal is discretionary	Court: de novo review of conflict — a significant risk exists under RPC 1.7 if Vargas is a witness; denial to permit withdrawal was an abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred in allowing the State to interview Vargas under RPC 3.7	O'Neil: RPC 3.7 and 1.7 together bar the State from calling/interviewing Vargas because it creates a conflict	State: RPC 3.7 governs calling opposing counsel as witness at trial; an interview does not mandate disqualification; the trial court has discretion	Court: review of RPC 3.7 ruling is for abuse of discretion; but when a witness is a supervised subordinate, apply the necessary-witness test — if Vargas is a necessary witness, Aralica must withdraw; trial court erred in permitting the interview without applying that test

State v. Vicuna, 119 Wn. App. 26, 79 P.3d 1 (appellate standard for conflict existence reviewed de novo)
State v. Hunsaker, 74 Wn. App. 38, 873 P.2d 540 (determination whether continued representation violates RPCs is question of law)
Public Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Int’l Ins. Co., 124 Wn.2d 789, 881 P.2d 1020 (announced the necessary-witness test and cautioned against disqualification absent compelling circumstances)
State v. Schmitt, 124 Wn. App. 662, 102 P.3d 856 (applied necessary-witness test; disqualification appropriate when testimony is material and unobtainable elsewhere)
State v. Davis, 141 Wn.2d 798, 10 P.3d 977 (Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel)