Barringer and Springer - Potential Conflict of Interest

[Dezcad]

In Springer's appeal of his criminal conviction to the 10th Circuit, the US attorney has submitted a letter to the Clerk (which was docketed in the Appeal) raising a potential conflict of interest concern with Barringer's representation of Springer.

May 27, 2010
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Elisabeth Shumaker
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit
The Byron White U.S. Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, CO 80257
Re: United States v. Lindsey K. Springer, et al. Nos. 10-5055, 10-5057 (10th Cir.) --
Potential Conflict of Interest

Dear Ms. Shumaker:

This correspondence is intended to provide notice to the Court of a potential attorney ethics
issue regarding Jerold W. Barringer, counsel for Defendant-Appellant Lindsey K. Springer in this appeal. The government is concerned about a possible conflict of interest posed by Mr. Barringer’s prior representation of Judith Patterson, who cooperated with the government in its investigation of Mr. Springer and his codefendant and co-appellant, Oscar A. Stilley.1

The ethical obligations imposed on attorneys include the requirement that an attorney not act in a manner detrimental to the interests of a former client. Specifically, Rule 1.9(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct -- which govern Mr. Barringer -- states that “[a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents after disclosure; or (2) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client, unless:
(A) such use is permitted by Rule 1.6; or (B) the information has become generally known.”

In addition to having general concerns regarding Mr. Barringer’s prior representation of an adverse witness in this same matter, we are particularly struck by Mr. Barringer’s attempts to unseal confidential materials related to his former client and her husband for the benefit of Mr. Springer. In the motion for bail pending appeal that Mr. Barringer submitted to this Court on behalf of Mr. Springer on May 4, 2010, Mr. Barringer wrote that the government “falsely told [District] Judge Eagan [that] Mrs. Patterson gave substantial assistance before September 2, 2004” (Springer Mot. at 18) and that Judge Eagan’s “bias and prejudice against” Mr. Springer were demonstrated by the sentencing reduction she gave Mrs. Patterson (id. at 29). Apparently in an attempt to support these claims, Mr. Barringer attached to his motion three confidential documents related to his former client that had previously been sealed by other courts:
Mr. Patterson’s sentencing agreement, the United States’ motion for sentencing relief with respect to Mrs. Patterson, and Mr. and Mrs. Pattersons’ grand jury transcripts. (See Springer Mot., attachs. 14, 15, and 16.) After conferring with Mr. Barringer and determining that he did not oppose sealing these documents, the United States submitted a motion to seal to this Court on May 6, 2010, which was granted on the same day. On May 13, however, despite having
previously advised the government that he did not oppose sealing these three attachments,
Mr. Barringer moved on behalf of Mr. Springer for this Court to unseal the documents, and then
subsequently replied in opposition to the government’s response to his motion to unseal.

By letter dated May 6, 2010, the United States brought its conflict-of-interest concerns to Mr. Barringer’s attention. To date, however, Mr. Barringer has not responded to that letter. Counsel for the United States do not wish to interfere with any attorney-client relationship, and
we have no way of knowing whether Mr. Barringer has complied with the requirements of Rule 1.9(a) by obtaining informed consent from Mrs. Patterson regarding his use of her confidential
sentencing documents on behalf of Mr. Springer. Accordingly, we are not, at this time, alleging
any wrongdoing or moving to disqualify Mr. Barringer from this case. We do, however, believe
that the possible conflict of interest we have outlined above warrants this Court’s attention.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Charles A. O’Reilly
ALAN HECHTKOPF
CHARLES A. O’REILLY
ALEXANDER P. ROBBINS
Attorneys for the United States


n1. Mr. Barringer represented Judith Patterson in United States v. Eddy Patterson and
Judith Patterson, 03-cr-055-CVE (N.D. Okla.). Mr. Stilley represented Eddy Patterson, Mrs.
Patterson’s husband. After Messrs. Barringer and Stilley ceased representing the Pattersons, the
Pattersons agreed to cooperate with the United States