Removal Sought of Lawyer in King Case : Courts: Attorney for Koon will try to have counsel for Powell removed in the federal trial of four LAPD officers.

A feud among lawyers representing the four Los Angeles police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights widened Thursday, as the attorney for Sgt. Stacey C. Koon filed documents suggesting that he will try to have one of the other defense attorneys removed from the case.

The move by lawyer Ira Salzman threatens to jeopardize the position of Michael P. Stone, who represented Officer Laurence M. Powell during the officer’s trial on state charges and continues to represent him as they face federal civil rights charges. Salzman said in his motion that he believes Stone may have a conflict of interest that would force him to step aside.

“This basically knocks Stone out,” said attorney Harland W. Braun, who represents Theodore J. Briseno and who has openly clashed with Stone for weeks. “The government has conceded that there’s a conflict, and now Koon is saying he won’t waive it.”

If Salzman’s effort is successful, it could result in the case being split, or it could force Powell to find a new lawyer. Either way, it would likely delay the proceedings, and if Stone is removed, it could postpone the trial--now set to begin on Feb. 2--for months.

Salzman does not spell out his reasons for believing that Stone has a conflict of interest, but Stone’s law firm also represents Koon in a civil suit. That could mean that Stone has access to privileged material regarding Koon, and if Koon’s interests and Powell’s diverge during the trial, it could create a conflict.

Already, one issue appears to separate Powell and Koon. Stone filed a motion last month seeking to limit expert testimony on the use of force by police officers. Koon’s defense is largely based on the premise that the effort to subdue King was a proper use of force, so if Stone’s motion is granted, it could hurt Koon.

Neither Salzman nor Stone was available for comment Thursday.

Salzman’s motion makes him the second lawyer in the case to question Stone’s right to represent Powell. Braun launched a blistering attack on Stone last month, accusing him of orchestrating a police code of silence used to thwart Briseno during the state case. Stone angrily denied those charges and asked U.S. District Judge John W. Davies to schedule a hearing so that Stone could clear his name.

After Braun filed his allegations, prosecutors took the unusual step of siding with Stone, but they also suggested that while Briseno’s claims were not supportable, the other co-defendants might have the right to challenge Stone. Prosecutors suggested that each of the other defendants should be asked to provide written waivers saying that they do not believe Stone has a conflict of interest.

Each of the other officers supplied those waivers in the state case, but this time, Koon has refused.

“Defendant Stacey C. Koon hereby expressly revokes the waiver of conflict that was executed and filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on Jan. 13, 1992, and shall waive no conflicts of interest,” Salzman said in his motion.

Salzman added that he does not endorse Braun’s claims that Stone acted improperly during the state trial. Salzman said he would inform the judge of his reasons for believing that Stone has a conflict in this case but would do so in closed session because those reasons are covered by the confidential relationship between a lawyer and his client.

For his part, Powell seemed mystified and disturbed by the legal maneuvering to oust his attorney.

“I don’t know anything about it,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, I intend to keep Mike Stone as my attorney, and I’ll fight for that to the end.”