DRUG LAWYER BECOMES SUSPECT HIMSELF

Martinsville attorney Rickey Young feels trapped within a government
conspiracy, of federal agents monitoring his moves, tailing his trips
and bugging his phones, and federal prosecutors seeking to cripple his
practice in federal court.

What the agents have done in their three-year investigation isn't
entirely known. What they haven't done is persuade a federal grand
jury to indict the 45-year-old lawyer.

Although Young has never been charged with a crime, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Roanoke has tried repeatedly -- most recently
last week -- to get him disqualified from representing criminal
defendants in federal court.

Some judges have granted the U.S. attorney's request. Some have not.
The result in Young's eyes: the loss of $70,000 in business for his
small Martinsville practice.

Federal prosecutors and some legal observers say the attempts to
disqualify are necessary to ensure the justice system's integrity;
criminal defense attorneys decry Young's situation as a subversion of
that system.

And then there's Young, himself a former prosecutor in the Army, who
says his law practice and life have spiraled into a crapshoot -- Will
the investigation end? Will I get to keep this case? -- in which
everyone but he is holding the dice.

Young doesn't know what sparked the investigation. At various times,
he blames politics, race, his passion for flashy cars, and his
willingness to defend drug dealers from Martinsville to
Charlottesville.

"Rickey's biggest problem? He's black, he drives Porsches and does a
good job at what he does," said Lee Houseman, owner of Cars and
Classics II in Rocky Mount, who denied before one grand jury
prosecutors' claim that his car deals with Young were guises to
launder drug money.

Young thinks the investigation began in December 1996, a month after
his second wife died of cancer. It was then he saw the first subpoena
seeking business records from a Martinsville company with whose owner
he'd co-signed a loan. Other subpoenas went out to friends in Atlanta
and Washington concerning car deals.

Also subpoenaed were his 20-year-old law school records from
(http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/)Washington and Lee University, to find
out, Young suspects, if he took tax classes to learn how to defraud
the IRS.

He says one day he stepped from his office to find a Drug Enforcement
Administration agent standing beside his black 1987 Mercedes 420 SEL.
The agent tapped the hood, Young says, and said, "We're going to take
this. This is our car."

A grand jury first convened in January 1997. Based on reports from the
witnesses called before it, Young says the grand jury met eight times
in 1997 and 1998 to listen to government suspicions of drug
trafficking, money laundering and transporting stolen cars across
state lines.

No indictments ever emerged. But in April 1998, the U.S. Attorney's
Office began pushing to disqualify Young from all the criminal cases
he had in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He
had four at the time -- none court-appointed; all were paying clients.

Why the U.S. Attorney's Office chose this time to act is unknown. The
motions to disqualify are sealed, and the U.S. Attorney's Office
declined to comment on Young's case. Federal prosecutors are barred
from publicly discussing any matter before a grand jury or even
acknowledging whether such a matter exists.

The reason for the push, say legal experts, is that a "targeted"
defense attorney may be less than zealous in his client's defense in
order to win favor with the federal prosecutor over his own case.

Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor and former federal
prosecutor, explains that if the prosecutor doesn't raise the issue
and secures a conviction, "then the client, sure as shooting, is going
to turn around and say the attorney didn't provide a vigorous
representation because he's under investigation."

The defendant could successfully appeal his case, Bowman added,
because he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel.

So argued a federal prosecutor April 22, 1998, in U.S. District Court
in Charlottesville, in seeking to have Young disqualified from
representing John F. Banks, who was accused of dealing cocaine.

Judge James Michael agreed. Over Young's protest, Michael ruled that
allowing Young to stay on the case would be "a bad problem, and it's
one which this court, any court, could not really countenance."

Martin Weinberg, director of the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, said prosecutors must raise the issue to make sure a
defendant knows his attorney's status so he can waive the issue as one
he can appeal.

"But the mere targeting of a lawyer ought not to lead to
disqualification," Weinberg said. "That gives the prosecution the
power to elect who represents a client. That should be the client's
choice, not the prosecutor's."

Prominent Richmond defense attorney David Baugh said the government's
argument is "absurd, to say nothing of the presumption of innocence
issue."

Scoffing at the notion Young would sell out a client, Baugh says Young
typifies the defense lawyer's creed: "My client is the Son of God, and
everybody else is a son of a b----."

Former Christiansburg attorney Keith Neely, who was convicted in 1993
of federal drug trafficking and money laundering, wrote from prison
that the argument about currying favor makes no sense.

"I personally would be much more apt to fight for my client's rights
even harder," Neely wrote, "knowing that the government would get a
taste of what was to come with any potential indictment of me."

Neely's attitude reveals a secondary reason why prosecutors seek
disqualification, says First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ruth Plagenhoef
in Roanoke. Lawyers outraged at their own investigation may choose to
fight prosecutors at trial rather than work with them to reach a
favorable plea bargain for their clients, Plagenhoef says.

But prosecutors' fear of giving Banks an appealable issue has led to
an appeal of its own. Ultimately sentenced to two life terms in prison
on cocaine-related charges, Banks is now asking the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for a new trial because Michael denied him his
counsel of choice.

Citing a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case, Wheat vs. United States, Banks
argues Michael should have recognized a presumption in favor of his
[Banks'] counsel of choice, unless there was "a showing of a serious
potential for conflict." Merely a "perceived conflict" is insufficient
for disqualification, Banks argues.

Indiana University's Bowman says federal prosecutors will face an
appeal regardless of what they do. But this appeal is easier to
defend. Citizens aren't entitled to their lawyer of choice, Bowman
explains, only competent representation. As long as Young's
replacement was competent, he believes, Banks' appeal will be denied.

Michael's ruling set the ball in motion.

On May 22, 1998, Young appeared before U.S. District Judge James Turk
in Roanoke. There, Turk ruled that "to keep uniformity in the district
and to follow the rule of Judge Michael," Young no longer could
represent Alfred L. Day in his cocaine case.

Again, Young protested. He called the federal investigation "a witch
hunt ... [and] as far as I know, I've never been a witch."

On June 5, 1998, Young was back before Turk concerning his
representation of Sylvester J. Jones, charged with heroin conspiracy.
Turk again disqualified Young, but added, "What troubles the court a
little bit though, is that it denies a defendant of being represented
by the attorney of his choice."

The $70,000 Young says he's lost comes not only from the
disqualifications, but also from potential clients who have shied away
from him. Young claims federal drug agents warn those they arrest not
to hire him because of his investigation -- an accusation one agent
denied.

Jimmy Adams, a longtime client of Young and manager of heavyweight
boxer Oliver McCall, says he once recommended a friend to Young. The
friend met with Young, then scrambled back to Adams. "You didn't tell
me he was under investigation," the startled friend told Adams.

"It's probably damaged him much more than you or I see," Adams
said.

Plagenhoef counters that every lawyer loses paying clients due to a
conflict as defined by the Professional Code of Responsibilities.

"We have the rules, then the constitutional rights of the individual
clients, and we let the courts decide as we go along," Plagenhoef said.

There has been some redemption along the way.

Despite Turk's desire for "uniformity in the district," Judge James
Jones in Big Stone Gap refused the prosecution's motion in July 1998.

Judge Jackson Kiser did the same 10 days ago when the government
petitioned him in a closed hearing in Roanoke. And Monday, Judge
Norman Moon in Lynchburg denied prosecutors' request, ruling there was
no actual conflict.

In the Alfred Day case, Turk eventually relented and allowed Young to
sit as co-counsel.

At Day's trial in September 1998, Young accused two Roanoke police
officers of lying to convict Day of possessing cocaine with the intent
to distribute, prompting the federal prosecutor to accuse Young of
"disgusting" slander.

Day was convicted, but Turk recently commented, "I didn't see any
evidence of his [Young's] slackening off in the defense of his client."

The judge continued: "It just seems to me it ought to be brought to
some kind of conclusion and if they have a case then prosecute him, or
they ought to drop it so he can practice again in federal court."

On this, even Bowman agrees.

"I think the government has some obligation to wrap the damn thing
up," the professor said. "Sometimes these investigations take a long
time. Now three years is getting on, I must say."

The August batch of federal indictments have led to two more defendants
seeking Young's services. Whether they will get their wish remains to be seen.
If and when federal prosecutors make their argument to disqualify Young, he's
sure to respond as he did before Judge Turk:

"After eight grand juries, I think they've had there more than enough
bites at the apple. I'm not President Clinton, I don't claim to be.
I'd just like to have my day in court, judge."