ALBANY — Was Gary Wright’s representation compromised because one of his lawyers, James Long, had also represented the Albany County district attorney, David Soares?

That was the question before the seven judges in the state’s top court on Wednesday afternoon. They are likely to rule on the case in June.

In July 2008, Wright was charged with attempting to rape a neighbor in Berne. He was first represented by Thomas Spargo, a former Berne town judge who was removed as a New York State Supreme Court justice in 2006; in August 2009, Spargo was convicted of attempted extortion and attempted soliciting of a bribe.

In February 2009, Wright replaced Spargo with Long. Wright fired Long two months before his trial and was ultimately defended in Albany County Court by Terence Kindlon in November 2009 and was convicted of sexual abuse and first-degree attempted rape. He was sentenced to seven years; his conviction was affirmed in 2011.

The Court of Appeals hears cases that set legal precedent. The middle-level court in the state’s three-tired system, the Appellate Division, had said that Wright had failed to show the existence of an actual conflict of interest. Wright had argued that Long had a conflict because he was representing both Wright and Soares whose office was prosecuting him.

Wright had filed a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law, Section 440, to vacate the judgment. He offered evidence that, in October 2008, Long sent a letter to the Albany County Board of Elections on behalf of Soares’s re-election campaign because Soares’s name had been left off the absentee ballots for the Independence Party line. Wright also submitted evidence that Long represented Soares in a professional misconduct proceeding in April 2011 and later represented Soares in several personal matters.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Horn responded in an affidavit that Long’s letter to the Board of Elections was sent about four months before Wright retained Long; Horn denied that Long represented Soares at anytime during the period Long was defending Wright.

Wright’s attorney, Michael Katzer, of Slingerlands, told the Court of Appeals that Long and Soares had had a retainer-like relationship spanning the time frame of Wright’s criminal case, which denied Wright his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

“If an attorney has an active role in a campaign…that attorney cannot appear before that judge for two years, two years,” Katzer argued on Wednesday.

“The two-year rule applies to attorneys in front of a judge….Soares was not a judge; he was opposing counsel,” commented Judge Eugene M. Fahey.

“Why should any less of a rule apply if a man’s liberty is at stake?” Katzer responded. “We have to look at the big picture.”

Later, as Soares turned to Long to represent him with divorce proceedings, Katzer said, “The most important person to David Soares…was not his wife, it would have been Jim Long.”

“That would help your client,” countered Judge Eugene F. Pigott.

Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam brought up the affidavit submitted by Horn, which Katzer dismissed as “worthless under the law” since it was made without personal knowledge of the facts. “Personal knowledge was necessary,” said Katzer.

Katzer described talking to Wright in jail, “in a grim visiting room,” and telling him Soares was represented by Long. “His jaw dropped…Even though he was wearing a jumpsuit, he had a right to be shocked.” The district attorney, he had said earlier, is “the guy that’s trying to put you in jail.”

“There was no actual conflict,” Horn told the judges after Katzer had completed his arguments.

“Two people would know that — Mr. Long or Mr. Soares. We don’t have an affidavit from either,” said Judge Leslie Stein.

“The burden of proof is on him,” countered Horn. “I’m only required to deny or not respond…There’s no reason I should take a burden on myself to disprove his burden.”

Judge Michael Garcia asked if Long representing the district attorney wouldn’t create a conflict.

“He represented the campaign, if at all,” said Horn.

“There is a broader reality,” commented Judge Fahey, noting that Long had represented Soares “on five different instances,” naming his divorce and an extramarital affair among them.

“If not an actual conflict, isn’t there enough for an inference?” asked Fahey.

“There is no concurrence,” said Horn.

“How do you know that without a hearing?” asked Fahey.

Stein pointed out the possibility that Long could have handled other legal matters for Soares. “If it never became public, there would be no way to know that,” she said.

“He’s relying entirely on speculation,” said Horn of Katzer. “There is no reference to other legal proceedings.”

“What if Mr. Long were unavailable — dead, too ill, non compos mentis?” asked Judge Abdus-Salaam.

“It was his burden,” said Horn. “What we have here is really just guessing and innuendo.”

Horn also said there is “no reason to send back for an error or hearing. It was cured. He was represented by Terry Kindlon at trial.”

“His point,” said Pigott of Katzer, “was it could have affected pre-trial hearings.”

“What was the prejudicial effect before and after?” Chief Judge Janet DiFiore asked Katzer.

Katzer responded that Long had done inadequate preparation or investigation of the case. Long had obtained an offer to resolve the case with a misdemeanor plea that Wright had rejected.

“Two plea offers were made for straight probation,” said Katzer. “Mr. Wright rejected it because he was innocent.” He said that Long was not fighting “tooth and nail” for his client.

“How’d that work out for him?” came the question from the bench.

“Not well,” conceded Katzer.