Federal Prosecutors Seek To Disqualify Defense Attorney In Suplizio Case Over Conflicts Of Interest

JOHNSTOWN: Federal prosecutors are asking a judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania to hold a hearing—and potentially disqualify defense attorney William A. Shaw, Jr.—arguing that his continued representation of former DuBois City Manager John “Herm” Suplizio creates serious conflicts of interest that threaten the fairness of the case.

In a motion filed February 6, 2026, the government says Shaw is entangled in the case in two impermissible ways: he is both a potential witness in the criminal prosecution and the current attorney for a key government witness in a related civil lawsuit.

According to prosecutors, Shaw attended and secretly recorded a closed executive session of DuBois City Council in May 2023, where officials discussed a bag of cash totaling $93,920 that had been delivered to city officials by then–City Solicitor Toni Cherry. That recording has since been subpoenaed and is expected to be used as evidence, making Shaw a necessary witness.

At the same time, Shaw represents former DuBois Police Chief Blaine Clark in an ongoing civil lawsuit against the City of DuBois and several city officials. Clark is expected to testify for the government in Suplizio’s criminal case, placing Shaw in the position of potentially cross-examining his own client or tailoring questioning to avoid harming Clark’s civil interests.

Federal prosecutors argue that this creates “divided loyalties” prohibited under professional conduct rules and long-standing Supreme Court precedent. Courts, they note, are not required to accept a defendant’s waiver of conflicts when the integrity of the proceedings is at stake.

The motion asks the court to conduct a formal hearing to evaluate the conflicts and, if confirmed, to remove Shaw from the case to ensure Suplizio receives conflict-free representation and to prevent future appeals based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Motion To Disqualify Attorney Shaw

📑 Latest_Motion_02-26-2026.pdf

PDF 1 — Investigative Interview Of Chief Blaine Clark

📑 1.pdf

This report documents Clark’s account of how a bag containing $93,920 in cash was delivered to him and Interim City Manager Chris Nasuti by City Solicitor Toni Cherry. Clark describes how the money was counted, secured, and deposited into a new bank account. He denies involvement in taking funds from the DuBois Area United Way and denies accusations made by others.

Purpose in the motion: Establishes Clark as a central factual witness tied directly to the cash incident Shaw recorded.

PDF 2 — State Police Criminal Complaint & Probable Cause

📑 2.pdf

This lengthy filing outlines the alleged financial crimes attributed to Suplizio, including theft, fraud, misapplication of funds, tax offenses, and obstruction. It traces years of alleged misuse of nonprofit and public funds for personal benefit.

Purpose in the motion: Provides the criminal backdrop explaining why the cash delivery and executive session are material evidence.

PDF 3 — Attorney General Letter To Shaw (Oct. 3, 2023)

📑 3.pdf

Investigators formally informed Shaw that he was considered a necessary witness due to his attendance at and recording of a closed city council executive session. He was instructed to preserve the recording and withdraw from representation under the “lawyer as witness” rule.

Purpose in the motion: Shows Shaw had early notice of the conflict and was explicitly warned.

PDF 4 — Blaine Clark’s Original Civil Complaint

📑 4.pdf

Clark alleges wrongful termination, lack of due process, and retaliation after being placed on administrative leave and fired. The complaint references misconduct investigations and internal disputes involving city leadership.

Purpose in the motion: Establishes Shaw as Clark’s attorney in a case overlapping factually with the criminal prosecution.

PDF 5 — City Of DuBois Preliminary Objections

📑 5.pdf

The City seeks dismissal of Clark’s lawsuit, arguing he was an at-will employee, had no enforceable contract or tenure rights, and failed to show retaliation or causation.

Purpose in the motion: Demonstrates that Clark’s civil claims may require testimony from Suplizio, who supervised him.

PDF 6 — Clark’s Amended Civil Complaint

📑 6.pdf

Clark clarifies that Suplizio was his direct supervisor and alleges he reported misconduct to him. The amended filing strengthens retaliation claims and deepens factual overlap with the criminal case.

Purpose In The Motion: Confirms Reciprocal Conflicts: Clark Is A Witness Against Suplizio, And Suplizio Is A Witness In Clark’s Lawsuit.

Other Related Documents Of Interest

Affadavit 1 📑 affidavit.pdf

Affadavit 2 📑 AffidavitOfProbableCause.pdf

Federal Indictment 📑 indictment.pdf

Superceding Indictment 📑 supersedingindictment.pdf

What Is This Motion Really About?

This motion is not about guilt or innocence.

It is about whether one lawyer can ethically represent two people whose interests collide in the same factual universe.

Here’s the problem:

The defense attorney recorded a key meeting and may have to testify.
That same attorney represents a government witness in a related lawsuit.
The lawyer could be forced to choose between helping one client and protecting another.

Courts take this seriously because:

Trials must appear fair, not just be fair.
Conflicted lawyers create appeal risks.
Even voluntary waivers don’t always fix structural conflicts.

If the judge grants the motion:

The attorney is removed.
New counsel enters.
The case proceeds on firmer legal ground.

If the judge denies it:

Any conviction may be vulnerable on appeal.

This is about protecting the integrity of the trial, not picking sides.

What The Defense Might Argue

Waiver by Defendant
- Suplizio knowingly waived any conflict.
- He has a constitutional right to counsel of his choice.
Speculative Conflicts
- The attorney might not actually testify.
- Another lawyer could cross-examine Clark.
Civil vs. Criminal Separation
- The civil case is separate and unrelated.
- Clark’s testimony could be limited.
Strategic Delay Claim
- The motion is a tactic to disrupt the defense late in the case.