California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hajek, S049626 (Cal. 2014):
Vo appears to suggest the delay in payment created a conflict of interest, but he fails to identify any particular conflict. Vo's reliance on People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975 is misplaced because, unlike the situation there, the trial court here did not force defendant to go to trial with unpaid counsel against both his wishes and those of his attorneys. (See id. at pp. 984-988.) Indeed, the trial court worked with defense counsel to press the conflicts administrator to secure funding to pay counsel so the trial could proceed uninterrupted. On this record, Vo fails to demonstrate that the temporary delay in payment affected counsel's
Page 144
performance or divided their loyalties, or that it otherwise impaired his constitutional rights.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.