*1 is concerned was not covered by the initial applicаtion empanelment. validity the grand jury’s investigation into that areа must depend upon propriety the subse- quent notice of submissiоn.
Accordingly, because the allegations in the notice of sub- mission of the instant investigation satisfy facial ade- quacy faith gоod standards, I concur in the result. Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH Appellant, Anthony LOWERY, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Dec. 1982. Decided May Reargument Denied July *2 Henson, McLaughlin, B. Dist. Atty., Eric Gaele Deputy Barthold, Asst. Dist. Atty., appellant. Wissow,
Leonard aрpellee. S. LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDER ROBERTS, NIX, HUTCHINSON,
MOTT and THE
OPINION OF COURT PER CURIAM. must dual position
This Attorney appellee suppres- District counsel sion matter to prior his assuming office, that followed his by office’s direct attack in this appeal on the his adequacy own defense with to the respect suppression issue now before us a clear poses conflict of interest in violation of Canons 5 of the Pennsylvania Code Professionаl Responsibility, adopted this Court by order of February 27, 1974, to pursuant our to power regulate the conduct of lawyers V, under Art. 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitu- tion.
Since quashing the leaves the Superior Cоurt’s order intact, new trial granting further will be proceedings needed the trial court remove the conflict of interest pursuant to Section 205 Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Act of October P.L. 950, effеctive January P.S. 732-205 (Supp.1982).1 *3 In this case the District office has Attorney’s per mitted his raise subordinates to his own ineffectiveness as dеfense attack, counsel. Absent such a direct the potеntial is not so at prejudice the level great appellate as to per se the require Commonwealth’s Pisa quashеd. See v. Commonwealth, 724, 378 Mass. 393 386 (1979); N.E.2d Pisa Streeter, 530 However, F.Supp. (D.Mаss.1980). an an work, attack on his own attorney even if inadver a tеnt, is never mere of matter form. It a direct is attack which underminеs the total adversary system trust and confidence an betweеn and his client attorney necessary its In functioning. legal advicе when the seeking govern ment threatens their all individuals must be assured liberty can their never assert his own failures lawyer against them. this is Acсordingly C.J., former not
O’BRIEN, did the consider- participate ation of or decision this case.
McDERMOTT,J., files a dissenting opinion. supersedes prior practice seeking appointment 1. This statute of special April prosecutor to remove cоnflicts. Act P.L. 1980, 15, IX, repealed, Art. 71 P.S. Act October P.L. McDERMOTT,Justice, dissenting.
I would address Superior Court’s interpretation McCutchen,1 remand, before for the instruction trial court should this matter be retried.
460A.2d721 In the Matter of Petition of the PENNSYLVANIA BAR Boyle.
ASSOCIATION and Frank B. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
27,May McDevitt, Richard E. Director, JIRB, Richаrd A. Marvin Sprague, Comisky, Zim- Philadelphia, LeRoy S. merman, Gen., Atty. Harrisburg, resрondents.
John Harkins, Jr., G. Ziff, R. Lloyd Zemaitis, Thomas E. Scheetz, Hamilton Pepрer, & Philadelphia, petitioner; Borish, Bernard M. Andrew Philadelphiа, N. Pitts- Farley, E. burgh, Scranton, Joseph Gallagher, Glock, Jr., Carl E. Pittsburgh, Johnson, Jr., Erie, Herbert J. Keller, Charles C. Washington, Landis, Robert M. Robert M. Mundheim, Philadelрhia, Pearlstine, Raymond Norristown, Judd N. Poffinberger, Reath, T. Philadel- Henry *4 Weiss, M. phia, George counsel.
George Williams,
H.
President,
Vice
AmJudica
Soc.,
ture
Ill., John
Chicago,
Eckman,
W.
Brother Patrick
Ellis, Walter A. Spiro, Co-Chairman, Greater Phila. Ptshp.
amicus curiae.
ROBERTS,
C.J., NIX, FLAHERTY, McDER
MOTT, HUTCHINSON,
ZAPPALA,
McCutchen,
1. Commonwealth v.
(1975);
463 Pa.
cert, denied,
(1976).
U.S.
96 S.Ct.