Moriarty Defense Lawyer Withdraws : Cites Legal Ethics, Says Details Cannot Be Disclosed to Public

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W. Patrick Moriarty on federal charges of public corruption withdrew from the case Friday on grounds that he can no longer represent the Orange County businessman because of a problem of legal ethics.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

Rea initially was reluctant to grant Heller’s request.

Because he did not 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 a new trial date of Feb. 26 was set by Rea.

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 associates of Moriarty 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.

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 is that it could lead to future postponements of the trial.

‘Concerned About Trial’

“We are very concerned about the trial date in this case,” Drooyan said. “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 investigation of Moriarty might 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 his lawyer dropping the case.

Moriarty said that there is no ethical problem of any kind and that he is 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 considers 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.”

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) landed an insurance contract in 1983 with the California Commerce Club.

And state Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord) said, according to the Mercury News, that 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 that 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.