Ketner
United States v. Ketner
Opinion
Opinion
Selna, J.
Memorandum re Motion to Disqualify
On this Motion, Defendant Kenneth Ket-ner (“Ketner”) seeks to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Stol-per (“Stolper”) on the ground that Stolper worked in the Century City office of Irell & Manella LLP (“Irell”) at the same time Irell’s Newport Beach office represented Ketner in a bankruptcy resulting from the demise of Mortgage Capital Resources (“MCR”). The current prosecution is related to Ketner’s activities at MCR.
This case raises two issues. First, does a general application of California’s ethics rules require disqualification of Stolper? Second, is there a second, higher standard which requires disqualification of a government prosecutor solely on the basis of the appearance of conflict? As discussed below, the Court finds that application of standard ethical rules does not require disqualification. Assuming there is a second, higher standard applicable to prosecutors, the Court finds Stolper’s prosecution of Ketner does not raise an appearance of conflict justifying disqualification.
The Court conducted oral argument on April 25, 2005, and invited the submission of further evidence concerning Stolper’s dealings with…