## Facts

- The United States charged Roberto Hernandez and eight other defendants with participating in a narcotics conspiracy in the Southern District of New York.
- Nine defense lawyers represented the defendants; eight of those lawyers were court-appointed.
- The case involved electronic discovery (e-discovery) that defense counsel viewed as extensive enough to require centralized organization and management.
- The nine defense lawyers jointly asked the district court to appoint and fund a tenth lawyer to act as a “Coordinating Discovery Attorney” (CDA) for all nine defendants.
- The proposed CDA would manage e-discovery on behalf of the entire defense group, rather than for a single client.

## Issues

1. Should the court, using CJA resources, appoint an additional lawyer to serve as a coordinating discovery attorney for nine separately represented criminal defendants?
2. Do the professional-responsibility and confidentiality problems created by a single attorney working across multiple defendants outweigh the claimed efficiency gains of centralized discovery management?
3. If discovery coordination is needed, should the defense instead use an independent, arm’s-length e-discovery vendor, and if a CDA is later proposed, must the parties use a binding writing to define duties?

## Decision

- The court denied the request to appoint and fund a tenth attorney as a CDA for all nine defendants.
- The court based its denial on ethical concerns raised by having one attorney serve a coordinating role for multiple defendants in the same criminal case.
- The court stated that an independent vendor working under an arm’s-length contract was “clearly preferable” for discovery-management help.
- The court indicated that if a CDA-type arrangement were pursued, a stipulation or other legally binding document should clearly define the CDA’s responsibilities and the continuing responsibilities of each defendant’s own counsel.

## Legal Principles

- In a multi-defendant criminal case, appointing one lawyer to perform a shared role for multiple defendants can create conflicts of interest and threaten client confidentiality.
- Discovery management is not purely clerical; choices about sorting, organizing, and prioritizing materials can affect defense strategy and lawyer-client decisionmaking.
- Courts may deny CJA-funded defense requests when the proposed structure creates significant ethical and privilege risks that can be avoided through other means.
- Technical discovery support can be provided by a neutral, arm’s-length vendor without creating attorney-client duties to multiple defendants.
- When defense teams seek any shared discovery arrangement, the court may require a written, binding allocation of roles and responsibilities to avoid confusion about authority, confidentiality, and accountability.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Hernandez, the Southern District of New York denied nine defendants’ request for CJA-funded appointment of a tenth lawyer to act as a coordinating discovery attorney for all defendants, finding that the arrangement posed serious ethics and confidentiality problems; the court favored using an independent e-discovery vendor and required a clear binding writing if any CDA-style arrangement were later proposed.


United States v. Hernandez, 2014 WL 4510266 (2014)