The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P seeks a writ of prohibition against Ds, the two judges of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit to preclude them from appointing P to represent indigent criminal defendants until such time, if ever, that the petitioner engages in the practice of law separate from her employment full-time as house counsel for a business corporation. P is employed by Go-Mart, Inc. as its general counsel. She has held that position since August 1, 1987. P has no separate private law practice. As a condition of P's employment by Go-Mart, P is prohibited from having outside employment commitments. P is required to work a minimum of thirty-nine hours per week in order to maintain her medical and life insurance coverage. P normally averages fifty hours per week of work and sometimes works as many as seventy-five hours per week. All of P's office space, equipment, and supplies are furnished by Go-Mart. P possesses no criminal reference books, state or regional reporters, or other research materials relating to criminal law. Her files and computer data bank are the property of Go-Mart and can be accessed by other Go-Mart employees. P has no facilities whereby she could ensure client confidentiality for any client other than Go-Mart or its related corporations. P is a former assistant prosecuting attorney. The Circuit Court has appointed P to represent forty-three indigent criminal defendants charged with seventy-five crimes. Most of the crimes are misdemeanors, but some are felonies, and there is one juvenile proceeding. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court denied P's motion to be relieved as counsel. P brought this prohibition proceeding to bar enforcement of the trial court's ruling.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.