Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 WANDA E. HOFMANN (014805) 3 Assistant Attorney General 177 North Church Avenue, Suite 1105 4 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1114 (520) 628-6044 · Fax (520) 628-6050 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 9 10 v. 11 STATE OF ARIZONA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director Schriro, Pastoral RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REMOVE WANDA E. HOFMANN AS DEFENSE COUNSEL KEVIN ROY, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV03-2150-PHX-SRB (MEA)

15 Administrator Linderman and Chaplain Sabbagh, through counsel, oppose Plaintiff ADC 16 inmate Kevin Roy's Motion to Remove Wanda E. Hofmann as Defense Counsel (Motion) 17 because it is not supportable under the facts or law. Roy asks the Court to "remove" 18 undersigned counsel from the case, apparently because he intends to call counsel as a 19 witness to testify on advice she gave to her clients, the Defendants in this case.1 Roy 20 contends that to allow counsel to continue to serve as defense counsel would violate 21 Ethical Rule 3.7(c), which prohibits a lawyer "to act as an advocate at a trial in which the 22 lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness" absent designated circumstances. One of those 23 circumstances is where "disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on 24 25 In the Motion, Roy states: "Plaintiff discovered that Wanda E. Hofmann will be called as a witness." (Motion at 1.) Given his use of the passive voice, it is not exactly 26 clear what Roy means as he appears in this case pro se and there is no hearing or trial calendared at this time.
Case 2:03-cv-02150-SRB-MEA Document 124 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 1 of 2
1

1 the client." E.R. 3.7(a)(3). Roy argues that counsel "is one of hundreds of attorneys in 2 the Office of the Attorney General. There is no distinctive value in Hofmann for which 3 another attorney in her office could not easily represent Defendants without a conflict of 4 interest." (Motion at 2.) 5 The Court should deny Roy's Motion. Indeed, the Ethical Rules forbid counsel to

6 "reveal information relating to the representation of a client." See E.R. 1.6 (pertaining to 7 confidentiality of attorney-client communications). Moreover, perhaps unknown to

8 Plaintiff, there are not "hundreds of attorneys" who defend against inmate lawsuits in this 9 Office and to transfer the sizeable file of this case to another of the rare breed of assistant 10 attorneys general who do would result in significant waste of valuable State resources and 11 unnecessary cost to Arizona taxpayers. 12 WHEREFORE, for all these reasons, Defendants request the Court deny Plaintiff's

13 Motion to Remove Wanda E. Hofmann as Defense Counsel. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 COPY of the foregoing mailed this 2 day of March, 2006 to: 21 Kevin M. Roy, #131699 22 ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit 23 P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232-3300 24 25 s/CBailey Secretary, Attorney General's Office 26
IDS04-0272/949612

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this

2

day of March, 2006.

TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL

s/Wanda E. Hofmann WANDA E. HOFMANN Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-02150-SRB-MEA

Document 124

2

Filed 03/02/2006

Page 2 of 2