MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2002, REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA I've got this application which consists of a·request by your current lawyers to be relieved of their responsibilities to you as lawyers and to be relieved of their status as counsel of record. And itstates without explanation there is an actual conflict of interest that I could only be told about if you were to waive your attorney-client privilege, which your lawyers think you should not do, and that this conflict of interest is distinct. That's the term that's been incorporated into the application. Most of the time when I am encountered - when I am presented with a request to be relieved because of a conflict, your office tells me about an association with some other individual, often a defendant to whom they owe potentially conflicting or actually conflicting duties of confidentiality or loyalty. Is that the situation here? THE COURT: I'm sure you can explain what this is about so that Mr. Sutcliffe certainly has an opportunity to know what is before me as a ruling without waiving attorney-client privileges. So please do so. MS. BEDNARSKI: We're --we feel that the events that have passed we would not disclose to anyone hearing in this case, to anyone ruling on potential motions --- THE COURT: When you refer to the events that have transpired, do you mean the events that are the subject of investigation under the indictment? MS. BEDNARSKI: No. THE.COURT: The events involving your communications with Mr. Sutcliffe as a lawyer? MS. BEDNARSKI: Yes. THE COURT: And what those communications and events have done to your ability to maintain mutual respect and confidence? MS. BEDNARSKI: Yes. THE COURT: Without telling me anything about the communications as such or.the actual events, are you here today because you think that the lawyers' ability and right to have confidence in the representations and positions of the client have been irrevocabiy impaired? MS. BEDNARSKI: No. We're here because our ability to do our best, to zealously represent him and to effectively represent him have been impaired. We don't believe we can do that and we believe he's entitled to that. THE COURT: What could possibly happen that would change things if a new lawyer were appointed? MS. BEDNARSKI: The -- well, the past events or the past communications may not occur. A new lawyer -- even if a new lawyer had been -- experienced those same things that new lawyer may indeed not end up in the same position. In other words, that new lawyer's ability to effectively represent someone may not be so damaged, so affected or so infected or so compromised. THE COURT: Ms. Bednarski, are you telling me in plain language that the communications between your office or any member of your office on the one hand and Mr. Sutcliffe on the other hand have been so impaired that the ability to maintain mutual trust and respect and confidence in each other's respective obligations and positions has been shattered? MS. BEDNARSKI: Yes. THE COURT: Is that a result of things that were said by one side or the other side in this existing attorney-client relationship? MS. BEDNARSKI: In part. THE COURT: Have you discussed up until this afternoon your -- before this afternoon, before this proceeding began here in court, your office's view that it cannot adequately represent Mr. Sutcliffe? Have you discussed that with him? MS. BEDNARSKI: No. We communicated to him the same position we communicated to you. We gave him the'papers. We do not believe that his position or- his feelings or his ability can repair where we are. In other words, it's our motion to be relieved and it's not, in our view, something that can be fixed by inquiry, explanation. We served him -- not served. But we had somebody meet with him and give him the papers as -- THE COURT: When was that? MS. BEDNARSKI: On Thursday. THE COURT: Keep going. MS. BEDNARSKI: And we did so, I think -- and we did that for the reasons that any, I think, professional person would, which it is obviously a matter that concerns him greatly. We've obviously gave -- I'm not going to say obviously. We've given it a lot of thought. It's something I've never done. It's something that my office has rarely asked for. And I can't think of a circumstance that I can draw upon that gives me an experience of similar quality. It's not done lightly. I actually believe it's in Mr. Sutcliffe's best interests regardless of what he may believe. And he's entitled to someone who can fight effectively and zealously for him. THE COURT: That's true. There's no doubt about the latter conviction. I'm not willing to require these lawyers, to permit you, against your best interest, to require these lawyers to remain as your lawyers. You got too much baggage in this case. And it's not necessary for me to make any findings about who's right and who's wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know for sure. However my good buddy judge Alex Kozinski and I will accuse you saying you "insisted on firing them," later, in your only appeal.