NY court orders hearing over lawyer conflict claim

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has ordered a hearing for a man convicted of drug and weapon charges because of a potential conflict of interest between attorneys for the man and a codefendant.

In September 2017, Faqir Rasul was charged in an 11-count indictment with various crimes. He pleaded guilty, in Albany, to one count of second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, and one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Under a plea agreement, Rasul was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 12 years in prison, followed by five years of post-release supervision.

But the codefendant was not indicted. He waived his speedy trial rights and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. He was released from jail after Rasul entered his guilty plea.

In October 2018, Rasul filed a pro se motion to vacate his conviction based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Rasul claimed his attorney failed to arrange for his appearance before the grand jury and failed to raise a speedy trial violation.

The motion was denied without a hearing.

In January 2023, now represented by an attorney, Rasul filed a second motion. Again, he claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest between his attorney and his codefendant’s.

The motion was denied without a hearing.

Rasul appealed to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Third Department, which ordered a hearing on the motion.

The defense submitted an affidavit from Rasul’s sister stating that she met with Rasul’s lawyer in an office that was shared with the codefendant’s attorney.

According to the sister, she hired and paid attorney Danielle Neroni Reilly to represent her brother. She asked Reilly to recommend an attorney for the codefendant and Reilly recommended William D. Roberts, who was then called out from another office to speak with her about the case.

Rasul’s sister contends that both attorneys represented that they were a part of the same law firm and worked “closely together,” according to the Third Department decision.

Rasul’s sister paid the same retainer fee for Roberts to represent the codefendant.

Despite being arrested together and charged with various drug offenses, Rasul was indicted, but the codefendant was not.

Rasul claimed that Reilly advised him to waive suppression hearings and accept a guilty plea because, if he did, the codefendant would be released on a misdemeanor charge, according to the decision.

The codefendant stated in an affidavit that he believed Reilly and Roberts were in the same law firm. And he confirmed that, after learning from Roberts that he waived the codefendant’s speedy trial challenge to wait for defendant to accept a plea and be sentenced, he was released from jail.

“Each of the affidavits in support further reflected that the attorneys gave the impression that they were associated in the same law firm or that they had worked closely with each other,” the Third Department wrote.

“Both defendant and the codefendant acknowledged that they were not advised of a potential conflict of interest,” the court wrote.

“There exists a stark contrast of the sentences between defendant, who received 12 years of incarceration with five years of post-release supervision, and the codefendant, who allegedly received time served,” the panel noted.

“These differences are not explained in the record before us and give rise to questions of fact about whether the relationship between Reilly and Roberts may have operated on the defense by impairing the best strategy for defendant,” the court wrote.

“On this record, we conclude that County Court abused its discretion in determining that a hearing was not warranted to address the allegations,” the court ruled.

The court sent the case back to County Court for a hearing on Rasul’s motion.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035