Jessica Mach reports in today’s Daily Journal about an attorney who is currently a partner in the firm that is defending a condemned prisoner on appeal but who had previously been part of the prosecution team that put the prisoner on death row.  The Supreme Court last week ordered defense counsel to confirm that there has been compliance with all ethical rules and statutes, one of which provides misdemeanor liability and mandatory disbarment for a violation.

The article quotes another partner in the firm as saying there’s no problem:  ” ‘We’re very confident that we followed all the appropriate ethical requirements such as obtaining an explicit, detailed, written waiver from the client, segregating [the former deputy DA] to any exposure or involvement with . . . the appeal and other appropriate steps.’ ”

I’m not sure that a waiver from the defendant — as opposed to one from the district attorney’s office — makes a difference for purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or for that matter whether any kind of waiver would count for purposes of Business and Professions Code section 6131.  But “segregation” (i.e., a formal ethical wall) might be sufficient, given that section 6131 seems to prohibit only advising, or taking part in, the defense (directly or indirectly).