Facts
In a criminal case against [X.] , [Y.] and [Z.] for various offenses such as breach of trust and violation of trade secrets, the public prosecutor's office ordered that attorney Marc Kaeslin would no longer be permitted to act as legal counsel and defense counsel for [X.] and [Z.] . The High Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed the appeals filed by [X.] and [Z.] against this decision. [X.] then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. He requested that attorney Marc Kaeslin continue to be admitted as his legal counsel and defense counsel. Alternatively, the case should be remanded to the lower instance for a new assessment.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that in cases of multiple defense mandates for the same legal representative for various co-defendants, there is generally a conflict of interest that can justify the exclusion of the requested private defense counsel. This applies even if the clients consent to the dual representation or the defense counsel wishes to plead for acquittal for all defendants. The public prosecutor's office did not rule out the possibility that [X.] and [Y.] may have committed criminal…