Professor Bo Mao, right, departs Eastern District courthouse in September, with his attorney Richard Roper of Thompson & Knight. Photo: Mark Kauzlarich/Bloomberg

Chinese professor Bo Mao, accused of working with a Chinese company widely believed to be telecom giant Huawei to steal intellectual property from an American company, told a federal judge on Wednesday that he wants to retain his current counsel despite questions about whether billing in the case could hurt his position.

Mao's Thompson & Knight and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorneys are being paid by an American subsidiary of the Chinese company, prosecutors have said.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen of the Eastern District of New York described several hypothetical scenarios to Mao during Wednesday's Curcio hearing. Billing records could potentially be introduced at trial as evidence of Mao's association with his alleged co-conspirators, she said, or he might want to testify in his own defense and speak against the company's interest.

Chen told Mao that while his current lawyers are capable, a court-appointed defender would be capable too.

"[Your lawyers] may have to risk not getting paid or sacrificing your interests, which they have a sworn duty to protect," she said.

Mao's court-appointed Curcio counsel, Garden City attorney John Wallenstein, said he consulted with Mao and the lawyers and believed the conflict was waivable.

"What [the lawyers] have represented to me is that Mr. Mao's interests will come first," Wallenstein said.

Moe Fodeman of Wilson Sonsini, who is representing Mao alongside Wilson Sonsini's Michael Sommer and Richard Roper of Thompson & Knight, confirmed that the lawyers plan to advance Mao's interest without regard to the payment situation.

Three times Chen asked Mao what he wanted to do.

"I would like to continue to employ them," Mao said at one point through his interpreter.

Chen asked him to clarify the meaning of "employ", noting once again that the American subsidiary is the one paying the bills. Mao confirmed that he understood that and wanted to keep his current representation.

Chen noted that Fodeman is a member of the Eastern District's Criminal Justice Act Panel, telling Mao that Fodeman could theoretically become his court-appointed counsel if he needed one in the future.

"[It would be] at a different pay scale… but that's their concern, not yours," she said. Fodeman declined to comment on the possibility of becoming Mao's court-appointed attorney.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University School of Law professor and an expert in legal and judicial ethics, said Mao's right to effective counsel has to be weighed against his right to choose his own counsel.

While Mao may not have much experience with the American legal system, Gillers said he seems to be competent, and the fact that his lawyers are from reputable firms also helps the conflict appear waivable.

The next status conference in the case is set for January 10. Mao's lawyers said they want to keep moving forward quickly because Mao's wife is currently supporting the family on a U.S. work visa while Mao is under house arrest in Texas, but her visa expires in about nine months.