## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigated Miami-area labor-union activities, including potential violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
- The investigation involved allegations of embezzlement by union officials, failures to maintain required records, and destruction of union records.
- Three union officers were subpoenaed to appear and to bring certain union records.
- Seymour A. Gopman, the unions’ retained counsel, also advised these three subpoenaed officers regarding their grand-jury appearances.
- After assessing the situation, Gopman concluded the officers could face criminal exposure under 29 U.S.C. § 439 for recordkeeping violations.
- Gopman advised the officers about potential penalties and their Fifth Amendment rights; each officer then invoked the Fifth Amendment, refused to produce the records, and declined to answer questions.
- The government moved to disqualify Gopman from simultaneously representing the unions and the three officers, asserting a conflict between the unions’ interests in cooperation and the officers’ interests in avoiding self-incrimination.
- The district court granted the motion and disqualified Gopman; he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had authority to consider and remedy a conflict of interest arising from counsel’s representation of multiple clients in a grand-jury investigation.
2. Whether simultaneous representation of the unions and subpoenaed union officers created an actual or serious potential conflict warranting disqualification.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the disqualification order.
- The court held the district court had authority and responsibility to supervise attorneys appearing before it and to protect the integrity of grand-jury proceedings.
- The court found that the unions’ institutional interests could diverge from the officers’ personal interests, creating at least a serious potential conflict.
- The court rejected the argument that the absence of formal “target” status for the three officers eliminated conflict concerns, because potential criminal exposure, not labels, controlled.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have inherent supervisory power to regulate attorney conduct and address conflicts of interest affecting proceedings within their jurisdiction, including grand-jury matters.
- A conflict (or serious potential conflict) exists where an organization’s interests in cooperation, disclosure, or distancing from wrongdoing may diverge from an individual officer’s interest in asserting the Fifth Amendment and avoiding criminal liability.
- Disqualification is within the district court’s discretion when divided loyalties may impair counsel’s independent advice to witnesses and threaten the fairness and integrity of the investigative process.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s disqualification of union counsel who also advised subpoenaed union officers, concluding that the likely divergence between the unions’ interests and the officers’ interests created a serious potential conflict that the court could and should prevent in a grand-jury investigation.


United States v. Gopman, 531 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976)