NEWS ANALYSIS : Judge to Rule in King Case Dispute : Courts: He will consider whether Officer Laurence M. Powell’s lawyer, Michael P. Stone, should be replaced because his law partner represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon in a related civil proceeding.

A long-brewing dispute among the lawyers defending the four police officers indicted by the federal government in the beating of Rodney G. King comes to a head today when U.S. District Judge John G. Davies considers whether to force one of the officers to drop the attorney who has represented him for nearly two years.

“This is a critical stage in this case,” said lawyer Harland W. Braun, who represents Officer Theodore J. Briseno. “It will determine a great deal about how we proceed from here.”

The issue already has splintered the defense team, raising issues about the leak of a confidential government memo and pitting Braun and Ira Salzman, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, against Officer Laurence M. Powell’s lawyer, Michael P. Stone. Lawyers for the fourth officer, Timothy E. Wind, have not accused Stone of any conflict of interest.

Salzman and Braun argue that because Stone’s law partner is Koon’s lawyer in a related civil case, Stone could have access to confidential information about both defendants. Braun and Salzman say that creates a conflict of interest for Stone and that he therefore should not be allowed to continue in the criminal trial.

On the surface, that may seem to be a picayune dispute, but it is one that legal scholars treat seriously, and it has enormous implications for when and how this case will be tried.

At stake are Powell’s right to a lawyer of his choosing and Koon’s right to confide in his attorney without fear that it might be used against him.

Most intriguing, however, is not the legal issue itself but the dissension it has brought to the surface among the defense lawyers.

The underlying dispute goes far beyond Stone’s law firm or its clients and speaks to an increasing distrust among the officers’ attorneys. It is largely fueled by Stone’s reported handling of an explosive confidential prosecution memorandum sent to him in August.

Stone declined to comment about the conflict-of-interest hearing, beyond saying that he has filed his arguments with the court. “We’ll wait for the judge to make a ruling,” he added.

But a sealed court document written by Stone and obtained by The Times hints that Stone’s handling of the prosecution memo--a so-called “order of proof” in which prosecutors outlined their case and the weaknesses of some potential government witnesses--is a major source of tension within the defense camp.

Sources have told The Times that the memo was mailed to Stone’s office. Stone read it and then returned it to the government, they added. Reacting to that account, Braun, in particular, has criticized Stone for returning the document without first sharing its contents with the co-defendants’ lawyers.

Stone has never commented on the memo, even to acknowledge its existence. But in the declaration filed with the court, Stone acknowledged that he did receive “confidential papers” and that his handling of them may be one of the reasons that other defense lawyers are trying to have him removed from the case.

“One item which has been mentioned in court is the matter of the receipt by me of confidential papers, previously addressed by this court in a confidential setting,” wrote Stone, whose declaration was inadvertently placed in a public court file. “While other lawyers may question the wisdom of my handling of that affair, and indeed they have, I do not see that a conflict is thereby created.”

Braun confirmed that the issue has deepened the rift among the lawyers for the officers.

“If you (broke) the Japanese code and a fellow officer notified the Japanese of that, would you get along with that guy?” he asked.

Salzman declined to discuss the issue of the memo’s impact on the defense efforts, but said he believes that Stone has a conflict of interest, and therefore should be removed from the case. That conflict, according to Salzman, grows out of two cases being handled by Stone’s law firm, Stone and Feeley.

One partner of that firm--Stone--represents Powell in the federal civil rights case against the officers. At the same time, Stone’s partner, Thomas J. Feeley, represents Koon in a civil case that also stems from the March 3, 1991, beating.

To illustrate why that could create a problem, some legal experts suggest a hypothetical situation: What would Stone do if he received information from his partner that implicated Koon and at the same time helped Powell? As Powell’s lawyer, Stone would be obliged to use that information in court. But since his firm also represents Koon, he might also have an obligation not to use that same information, since it could hurt Koon’s chances of winning his civil case.

“That’s a potentially serious conflict,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at USC who teaches legal ethics. “The reason that it’s important for each of the co-defendants to have different counsel is because there’s the possibility that their defenses will conflict.”

Stone argues in his papers that the issue is moot because he has never received any such information. The civil case, he says, has been dormant since it was filed, and no progress is going forward on it until after the criminal case is resolved.

“Mr. Feeley has not, at any time, disclosed anything to me received from Mr. Koon insofar as I am aware,” Stone wrote. “The reason for this is plainly evident. All of the ‘action’ has been in the criminal cases.”

If Koon is interested in making sure that no confidential information be passed from his civil attorney to Powell’s criminal lawyer, Stone suggests that Koon hire a new civil lawyer rather than force Powell to drop Stone.

“Koon apparently does not want to have the firm of Stone and Feeley involved in both cases,” Stone states in his court filing. “The answer to this is simple: Mr. Feeley should withdraw from representing Mr. Koon in the consolidated civil cases.”

Chemerinsky said that could solve the problem, if indeed no confidential information has been shared between Koon and his civil lawyer. But Braun and Salzman say that Koon may already have confided in Feeley, so removing him now would not undo the damage. The only solution, they insist, is for Stone to step aside.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have their own interest in the outcome of this dispute. They want the trial to begin as scheduled, on Feb. 2. Removing Stone would delay that by months, and the prosecution has taken the unusual step of arguing that Stone should be allowed to stay on the case.

All of this leaves Judge Davies with an extraordinarily difficult decision. If he rules in Powell’s favor, he risks giving Koon the opportunity to appeal a guilty verdict, because Koon might be able to claim that his defense was undermined by the alleged conflict of interest.

At the same time, if Davies rules in Koon’s favor, he will force a long postponement in the trial and he will deny Powell the right to have a lawyer of his choosing. Although that right is not absolute--judges are required to take action if they believe there is a potential conflict, even if that means limiting a defendant’s right to pick his or her own lawyer--Powell has had the same attorney from the beginning of this case, and removing Stone now would probably set back the officer’s defense considerably.

“This is an extremely difficult choice for Judge Davies,” said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor.

“Someone’s interests are going to be hurt. Everyone cannot be happy.”