Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Karas

81 Ill. App. 3d 990 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Karas

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Fountain

    2012 Ill. App. 3d 90558 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Moreover, if one member of a private law firm has a per se conflict of interest, that conflict is imputed to all other members of the law firm, regardless of whether any of those other members had any personal involvement in the conflicting representation. See, e.g., People v. Free, 112 Ill.2d 154, 167, 97 Ill.Dec. 396, 492 N.E.2d 1269 (1986); People v. Fife, 76 Ill.2d 418, 425, 30 Ill.Dec. 300, 392 N.E.2d 1345 (1979); People v. Dace, 153 Ill.App.3d 891, 896, 106 Ill.Dec. 625, 506 N.E.2d 332 (1987); People v. Arreguin, 92 Ill.App.3d 899, 902, 48 Ill.Dec. 371, 416 N.E.2d 402 (1981); People v. Karas, 81 Ill.App.3d 990, 995, 36 Ill.Dec. 888, 401 N.E.2d 1026 (1980). Applying these principles, our appellate court has reversed convictions due to a per se conflict where defense counsel or his law firm represented the alleged victim in a related or an unrelated matter, regardless of whether the conflicting representation was ongoing at the time counsel represented the defendant.

  2. People v. Hillenbrand

    121 Ill. 2d 537 (Ill. 1988)   Cited 104 times
    In Hillenbrand, this court concluded that a per se conflict did not exist when, inter alia, defense counsel's representation of the victim "was concluded long before [Hillenbrand's criminal case]."

    ( People v. Cunningham (1985), 107 Ill.2d 143, 149-50.) As the State points out, the defendant's reliance on People v. Robinson (1979), 79 Ill.2d 147, and People v. Karas (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 990, is misplaced. In Robinson, the court found that a professional relationship between the defendant's attorney and another client was ongoing and active in that at the time of the defendant's trial, the prosecution witness still owed legal fees to the defendant's attorney.

  3. People v. Palmer

    141 Ill. App. 3d 234 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    In Palmer, defense counsel asked for leave to withdraw because the defendant's wife, who retained him as the defendant's attorney, was the complaining witness and a potential State's witness against the defendant.

    Where the interests of a defendant and the complaining witness are identical, the State contends, no conflict of interest exists. It would be extremely difficult for a defendant to show what subtle influences or subliminal reluctance affected the decisions of his defense counsel when advising and representing him. ( People v. Kester (1977), 66 Ill.2d 162, 167, 361 N.E.2d 569, 572; People v. Karas (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 990, 994, 401 N.E.2d 1026, 1029.) Because a defendant cannot identify them with certainty, we must concern ourselves with the potential conflict of interest.

  4. People v. Strain

    194 Ill. 2d 467 (Ill. 2000)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that the trial court's refusal to probe for bias denied the defendant "an informed and intelligent basis on which to assert challenges for cause or to exercise preemptory challenges"

    In general a party does not waive an issue if raised at the first opportunity. See People v. Janes, 168 Ill.2d 382, 387 (1995); People v. Karas, 81 Ill. App.3d 990, 996 (1980); People v. Knutson, 17 Ill. App.2d 251, 259 (1958). We note that the trial judge recalled the first venire panel and asked members of the panel supplemental questions relating to other matters.

  5. People v. Dace

    153 Ill. App. 3d 891 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 16 times
    Holding defense counsel had a per se conflict of interest where his law partner represented a witness against the defendant

    It is well settled that the knowledge of one member of a law firm is imputed to other members of the firm. ( People v. Karas (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 990, 401 N.E.2d 1026.) A conflict of interest for one member of a firm extends to all members of a firm.

  6. Burton v. Estrada

    501 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 25 times
    In Burton, the reviewing court interpreted a provision of the Probate Act of 1975 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110 ½, ¶ 19-8) and determined that the provision was designed to substitute a judicial determination for the guardian's personal discretion in order to provide additional protection to minor plaintiffs who enter into settlement agreements.

    This is immaterial, for knowledge of one member of a law firm is imputed to all of its members. ( People v. Karas (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 990, 995, 401 N.E.2d 1026, 1030; People v. Grigsby (1977), 47 Ill. App.3d 812, 820, 365 N.E.2d 481, 486.) An attorney is responsible for the negligence of others in the firm, and a client can be held accountable for his or her attorney's neglect.