9th Cir.;
15-50315

The court of appeals affirmed a judgment. The court held that a manifest conflict between counsel's self-interest and his client's interests did not warrant a presumption of prejudice.

Sylvia Walter-Eze was charged with multiple counts of health care fraud and related crimes. She was initially represented by a court-appointed attorney for whom the district court granted three separate trial continuances. Trial was set for March 3, 2015. On February 17, 2015, Walter-Eze moved to substitute in private counsel. The district court granted the request on condition that new counsel guarantee their ability to proceed on the current trial date or within a week thereafter. Counsel agreed, and trial was continued to March 10. On the morning of March 10, Walter-Eze filed an emergency motion to continue trial, citing multiple issues that had prevented counsel's adequate preparation. The court agreed to continue trial on condition that counsel pay the costs incurred by the continuance, including witness and jury fees, which totaled approximately $3,600 and would arguably require a report to the state bar. Counsel declined that offer and agreed to proceed.