Abstract
For the indigent client seeking representation from a provider of free legal services, a conflict of interest can bar the door to the "last lawyer in town." For this article, the author conducted a survey of legal services offices which indicated that many conflict of interest situations do not contain any actual prejudice for the indigent client. Nonetheless, given the usual understanding of conflict principles, the only available representation is denied despite the absence of any actual harm. The author argues that this consequence warrants rethinking the application of conflict principles in the legal services context. Because of the unique nature of the legal services attorney-client relationship, that rethinking leads to an actual prejudice standard for conflicts of interest, rather than the usual presumption of prejudice standard. The article also proposes a mechanism for utilization of the standard.
How to Cite
37 Ariz. L. Rev. 577 (1995)
5
Views
2
Downloads