When one wealthy co-defendant pays for a lawyer to represent another co-defendant, with the intention of sacrificing that one for the benefit of himself, a serious and actual conflict arises that jeopardizes the representation.
A serious risk of a conflict of loyalties arises when one co-defendant, who has implicated another co-defendant and who may wish to cooperate with the Government by testifying against the other co-defendant, is represented by counsel whose fees are being paid by the co-defendant against whom the first co-defendant may wish to testify. Even if the conflict is waived by all defendants upon the advice of counsel, the circumstances of the waiver may later be revisited on the theory that the waiver was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
U.S. v. Chapman, E.D. Pa. No. 99-375-2, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13675, *4 (Sept. 2, 1999).
Courts must be vigilant to protect against "the inherent dangers that arise when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by a third party," Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268-69, 67 L. Ed. 2d 220, 101 S. Ct. 1097(1981). One such risk is that the lawyer will prevent his client from obtaining leniency by preventing the client from offering testimony against [the co-defendant] or from taking other actions contrary to [the co-defendants] interest. Id.
Accepting payment of clients' fees from a third party may subject an attorney to undesirable outside influence, particularly where the attorney is representing clients in criminal matters, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7, and the third party is the head of a criminal enterprise of which the clients are members. In such a situation, an ethical question arises as to whether the attorney's loyalties are with the client or the payor.
--
Every defendant in this case has the right to counsel free of conflict. The State must act now to protect this case from further tampering and criminal misconduct by a wealthy defendant trying to fix the outcome from the inside of his jail cell. The State has an ethical duty to bring that conflict to the attention of this Court and to move for disqualification if this Court finds that such a conflict exists and Defendants do not waive. The States interest is not merely in securing a conviction; it is doing so fairly and in a manner that protects Defendants rights, even from their own counsel.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2509183/drug-ring-motion.pdf