Sometimes, but sharing a lawyer is a decision for each defendant and the lawyer after a careful conflict review. California does not treat co-defendants as automatically incompatible clients. Yet a lawyer cannot represent both simply because they are relatives, agree on what happened, or want to split a fee. If their interests are directly adverse, or there is a significant risk that duties to one will materially limit the defense of the other, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 requires informed written consent from each affected client and imposes further limits. Some conflicts cannot be cured by consent.
What makes a shared defense risky?
Two people may initially say they have the same account, then need different strategies when discovery arrives. The lawyer should ask whether one defendant might argue that the other planned the act, carried the weapon, made a statement, or played a greater role. A witness who helps one defendant may hurt the other. So may a motion, a decision to testify, or a negotiation for a reduced charge. These are examples of potential conflicts, not predictions about any particular case.
The question is whether the lawyer can investigate, advise, and advocate for each person with independent judgment. Rule 1.7 expressly asks whether the lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation of every affected client is possible, in addition to obtaining any required consent. A signed form alone does not answer that question. If a conflict emerges later, new disclosure and consent may be needed, and the lawyer may have to withdraw from one or more representations. Rule 1.7 and its comments explain these limits.
Plea offers can separate the clients’ interests
Suppose a prosecutor offers one defendant a plea tied to testimony or information about the other. The lawyer cannot assume that a joint defense remains workable. Even without that kind of offer, one defendant may want an early resolution while the other wants trial. Under Rule 1.2, the decision about which plea to enter belongs to the individual client after consultation, except as otherwise provided by law. Rule 1.4.1 requires the lawyer to communicate the terms of a proposed criminal plea offer to that client. A family member or co-defendant cannot make that decision for them.
The distinction matters even when everyone hopes to negotiate together. California’s Rule 1.8.7 adds specific informed written consent requirements for an aggregate agreement as to guilty or no-contest pleas for multiple clients. That rule does not remove the separate conflict limits in Rule 1.7.
If one person pays, who is the client?
A parent, partner, or one defendant may offer to pay for another defendant’s lawyer. Payment does not give that person control of the defense or access to the client’s confidential information. Rule 1.8.6 requires the lawyer’s independent judgment and client confidences to be protected and, subject to the rule’s stated exceptions, the client’s informed written consent to third-party payment. Paying for two lawyers also does not by itself decide whether the lawyers can work within the same firm; firm conflicts require their own review under Rule 1.10.
What should each defendant do before agreeing?
Each person should have a private conversation with a lawyer about their own account, goals, possible defenses, and what information they would need to keep from the other defendant. Before assuming two people can use one lawyer, ask the lawyer to explain the specific conflict risks, what information can be shared during joint representation, and what would happen if their interests split. Even an initial consultation can create duties to a prospective client under Rule 1.18, so tell the office if the lawyer has already spoken privately with another co-defendant. A separate confidential consultation gives each person room to describe facts or goals that a joint meeting may obscure.
If a shared lawyer already represents both people, a new plea proposal, new evidence pointing at one defendant, or a change in either person’s goals is a reason to ask for a fresh conflict assessment promptly. Do not assume that an earlier waiver resolves a later conflict. Whether separate lawyers are required depends on the actual conflict and whether California’s conditions for consent can be met.
For the broader defense process, see our fighting a criminal case and Los Angeles murder defense pages. If you or a family member faces charges with a co-defendant, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley can discuss the individual situation at (800) 755-5174.