Moriarty’s Attorney Quits the Case, Cites a Problem of Ethics

The attorney defending W. Patrick Moriarty on federal charges of public corruption withdrew from the case Friday on grounds that he can no longer represent the Orange County businessman because of a problem of legal ethics.

Donald H. Heller, a Sacramento lawyer who has represented Moriarty since his Nov. 8 indictment on charges of racketeering and mail fraud in connection with the licensing of a poker club in the City of Commerce, refused to elaborate on his reasons for withdrawing.

“I’m caught between the rock and the hard place,” Heller told U.S. District Judge William J. Rea. “I can’t represent this man at trial. But this is a matter that should not be disclosed in public. Because of attorney-client privilege, I would have problems even telling a judge in chambers.”

Heller’s withdrawal came 12 days before the scheduled start of the trial of Moriarty and Las Vegas gambling figure Frank J. Sansone on charges that they conspired to obtain a gambling license for the California Commerce Club by giving hidden ownership shares in the club to four former Commerce city officials.

Reluctant at First

Rea initially was reluctant to grant Heller’s request.

Because he didn’t know the grounds for the request, Rea said, he was concerned that “any attorney may be met with the same problem. It could conceivably affect every attorney who takes your place.”

The judge finally agreed to remove Heller from the case after receiving assurances that the substitution of a new lawyer would not substantially delay Moriarty’s trial. Los Angeles attorney Jan Lawrence Handzlik was approved as Heller’s replacement, and Rea set a new trial date of Feb. 26.

Moriarty has also been the subject of a widening investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Orange County district attorney’s office into allegations of money laundering in contributions to dozens of California political figures.

Former Moriarty associates have said that 32 California officeholders and candidates received laundered political contributions from Moriarty, who owns an Anaheim fireworks company, during a period in 1981 and 1982 when Moriarty was lobbying for legislation to legalize so-called “safe-and-sane” fireworks in communities where they were locally banned.

‘Concerned About the Trial’

Heller has also been representing Moriarty on federal grand jury matters relating to the wider investigation of Moriarty.

Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan said the government’s main concern about the late switch of defense lawyers was that it could lead to future postponements of the trial.

“We are very concerned about the trial date in this case,” said Drooyan. “We have a continuing investigation of Mr. Moriarty and others. We do not want to generate adverse publicity that would affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial in this case.”

Drooyan’s comment was the strongest government suggestion yet made that the continuing investigation of Moriarty may produce results that could overshadow the initial federal indictment on the licensing of the poker club.

“If this trial is delayed, it could stall the continuing investigation,” Drooyan said. “We don’t want to take any investigative steps that could generate additional publicity before this matter is concluded.”

Although Heller’s comments implied a possible ethical conflict created by Moriarty, Drooyan emphasized that there had been no suggestion that Moriarty had engaged in “any kind of wrongdoing” that resulted in the lawyer switch.

Moriarty said there was no ethical problem of any kind and that he was puzzled by Heller’s comments.

“Operating from here to Sacramento is a tremendous logistical problem and he (Heller) has an enormous caseload,” Moriarty said.

Handzlik, a former federal prosecutor, said he considered it unfortunate that the reasons for Heller’s withdrawal were expressed so mysteriously.

“I don’t expect to have any ethical problems representing Mr. Moriarty,” he said. “As for Heller’s withdrawal, the accurate speculation might be that there were two different views on how to conduct the case, and that Heller and Moriarty disagreed.”

Heller Affidavit

In an affidavit requesting the judge to allow him to withdraw, Heller said: “Matters have developed that cannot, because of the attorney-client privilege, be disclosed. However, such matters make it impossible for myself to discharge my professional responsibilities as set forth in the California Code of Professional Conduct.”

In another development Friday, the San Jose Mercury News reported that two state lawmakers who voted for the Moriarty-backed fireworks legislation subsequently had dealings involving companies in which Moriarty had an interest.

The newspaper said an insurance firm two-thirds owned by Assemblyman Frank Vicencia (D-Bellflower) in 1983 landed an insurance contract with the California Commerce Club.

And state Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord), the Mercury News reported, said he received “about $14,000” for legal services provided to R.E. Wolfe Enterprises of California, which operates publicly owned landfills and toxic-waste cleanup projects. Boatwright reportedly said he did not know Moriarty was a half-owner of R.E. Wolfe.

The newspaper said both lawmakers denied any connection between their votes on the fireworks bill and the business deals.