for [prosecution witness] Moffett and his knowledge of his client’s case must be imputed to attorney Kielian, who represented the defendant.” See also, e.g., Ross v. Heyne, 638 F.2d 979, 983 (7th Cir.1980) (stating that the situation in which one attorney represented the defendant, while hi , 301 N.E.2d 814, 817-818 (1973) (representation of the defendant and an adverse witness by different lawyers in same law firm was held to be a conflict of interest); State v. Bellucci, 81 N.J. 531, 541-542, 410 A.2d 666, 671 (1980) (conflict of interest rules as applied to a law firm should be viewed as if the firm were really one lawyer); People v. Mattison, 67 N.Y.2d 462, 469-470, 503 N.Y.S.2d 709, 713, 494 N.E.2d 1374, 1378, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984, 107 S.Ct. 571, 93 L.Ed.2d 575 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The same principle is reflected in 1 American
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding that the defendant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when a codefendants plea bargain including a promise to testify against the defendant was negotiated by the law partner of the defendants counsel holding that if plea bargain has been offered defendant has right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it