United States v. Bikundi
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17828
D.D.C.2015Background
- Grand jury indicted multiple defendants in a D.C. Medicaid fraud scheme; Ms. Sheryl Wood represented (1) Carlson Igwacho during the government investigation (including two interviews), (2) six related companies in response to subpoenas, and (3) post‑indictment, Michael Bikundi (Igwacho’s stepfather and co‑defendant).
- Ms. Wood’s representation of Igwacho occurred while he was a subject of the investigation and before his indictment; she later entered an appearance for Bikundi after his indictment.
- The Government moved to disqualify Ms. Wood from representing Bikundi based on successive representation of co‑defendants and overlapping subject matter.
- At hearings, both Igwacho and Bikundi on the record gave conditional waivers: Igwacho consented to the successive representation but refused to waive disclosure of confidences; Bikundi, after consulting independent counsel, accepted Wood as counsel despite ethical limitations.
- The Court questioned the voluntariness of those waivers and found a substantial risk that Ms. Wood’s duties to her former client (loyalty and confidentiality) would materially conflict with zealous representation of Bikundi.
- The Court concluded disqualification was required to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the defendants’ rights and granted the Government’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Ms. Wood/Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive representation of a former client‑subject (Igwacho) and a co‑defendant (Bikundi) presents a disqualifying conflict | Successive representation in the same matter creates a serious potential for conflict because Wood learned confidences and handled substantially related matters | No material adversity; evidence from Igwacho would not necessarily incriminate Bikundi; any conflict can be waived | Court: Significant potential for conflict exists; successive representation disqualifying absent reliable, voluntary waiver |
| Whether Igwacho’s informed consent cured the conflict | Consent was not sufficiently voluntary given family relationships, financial dependence, and refusal to permit disclosure of confidences | Igwacho consented on record to successive representation | Court: Consent was not sufficiently voluntary or complete (he withheld waiver of confidences), so it does not cure the conflict |
| Whether Bikundi’s waiver of conflict‑free counsel was valid | Waiver should be rejected when the court cannot ensure it is knowing/voluntary given withheld confidences and ethical imponderables | Bikundi, after consulting independent counsel, knowingly waived and wished to keep Wood | Court: Court declined to accept Bikundi’s waiver due to concerns that he lacked full information about Wood’s prior representation and the risks involved |
| Whether proposed workarounds (segregation of tasks, independent co‑counsel) cure the conflict | Workarounds cannot remove the pervasive, multi‑facet conflict that touches cross‑examination, theory, and trial strategy | Suggestion that independent co‑counsel or screening can cure issues | Court: Workarounds insufficient; pervasive conflict requires disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981) (Sixth Amendment right includes right to conflict‑free counsel)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (court has discretion to refuse waiver of conflicts to protect trial integrity)
- United States v. Lopesierra‑Gutierrez, 708 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir.) (2013) (balancing defendant’s counsel‑of‑choice against court’s interest in ethical proceedings)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) (ethical duties of counsel may limit conduct at trial and affect effective assistance analysis)
- United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir.) (1982) (examples of conflicts in joint/co‑defendant representation affecting trial decisions)
- United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693 (D.C. Cir.) (1995) (upholding disqualification where partner’s representation of co‑conspirator could create conflict)
- United States v. Davis, 780 F. Supp. 21 (D.D.C.) (1991) (appearance of conflict requires disqualification even if impeaching information is independently available)
- United States v. Miranda, 936 F. Supp. 945 (S.D. Fla.) (1996) (rejecting proposal that independent counsel handling trial aspects cures conflicts)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (attorney‑client privilege protects communications, not underlying facts)
- Church v. Sullivan, 942 F.2d 1501 (10th Cir.) (1991) (successive representation particularly fraught when former client’s facts are intertwined with defendant’s case)