Opinion
2:23-CV-10962-TGB-DRG
07-25-2023
SUZANNE ABBOTT and THOMAS O'CONNER, Plaintiffs, v. MARY RECHLIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING ECF NO. 15
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs have filed a motion, titled “Request to Deny Publicly Provided Legal Counsel.” ECF No. 15-1. The substance of the motion asks the Court to enter an order compelling Defendants, only one of which has entered an appearance, to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should not be granted the privilege of “publicly provided legal services” because Defendants have harmed Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs pay taxes used to fund those legal services.
This request is frivolous and will be DENIED. A party's right to have legal counsel is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence. See, e.g., Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932) (“It is hardly necessary to say that the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.”) To the extent Plaintiffs suggest that Oakland County Sheriff's counsel should be disqualified because of a conflict of interest, the Sixth Circuit has explained that a court may disqualify an attorney only “when there is a reasonable possibility that some specifically identifiable impropriety has actually occurred.” Moses v. Sterling Commerce (America), Inc., 122 Fed.Appx. 177, 184 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). And here the Court sees none.
IT IS SO ORDERED