A court evaluating whether a relationship creates a conflict of interest is going to rely on predictable legal authority: The rules of professional conduct, and cases applying the rules to different scenarios. This video is a deep dive into the law of conflicts of interest where we break down RPC 1.7's "concurrent conflict of interest" standard for disqualifying conflicts and look at cases that evaluate whether an actual conflict of interest exists under different circumstances, so that we can see how the facts of Anne Taylor's representation of Cara Kernodle fit within these legal standards. 00:00 Intro 00:31 RPC 1.7 gives the standard, cases apply the standard to different facts 00:48 The RPC 1.7 standard: A concurrent conflict of interest - directly adverse or material limitation 01:47 What are "directly adverse" relationships? 03:18 Another distiction: Actual conflicts vs. potential conflicts 04:11 Glasser: SCOTUS case where representing co-defendants created actual conflict 05:30 But Glasser also recognizes joint representation is not inherently bad 06:03 Holloway: SCOTUS case where co-defendants had conflicting defenses so actual conflict 08:05 Cara Kernodle isn't a co-defendant, so what about cases with facts closer to hers? 09:19 Dye: Public defender had represented informant witness in unrelated matter 11:57 Cook: Public defender office represented defendant, victim, and 4/5 informant witnesses 13:34 RPC 1.10: Conflicts are imputed to private firms, but not to public defenders 15:03 Araiza: You can impeach former clients with non-confidential information 17:46 Takeaways from the cases 21:33 Reassigning Cara Kernodle's case avoids problem of cross-examining current client 22:08 Next video: "Significant risk" attorney will be "materially limited" Part 1 - Kohberger Attorney Conflict?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8YrpRG-DQ Part 2 - How and Why did Anne Taylor get Appointed?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmVZZRFAJQM