U.S. attorneys Friday asked the court to disqualify two attorneys who have represented Louis and Katherine Kealoha from remaining on their federal corruption case, citing multiple examples of possible conflicts of interest.

For more than a year, Myles Breiner has represented the Kealohas in their criminal case while Kevin Sumida has been the Kealohas’ attorney on civil matters.

The Kealohas, along with four current and former members of the Honolulu Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Unit, were among six people charged in U.S. District Court on Oct. 20 with conspiring to frame Katherine Kealoha’s uncle, Gerard Puana, for the theft of the mailbox from their home, and then covering it up. The Kealohas, additionally, are accused of defrauding individuals and financial institutions of more than $1 million by, among other things, fabricating documents, misrepresenting facts, forging signatures, using aliases and stealing a police officer’s identity.

This week Breiner told the court he is removing himself from representing Louis Kealoha, the former Honolulu police chief, while remaining as Katherine Kealoha’s attorney.

The Kealohas have a constitutional right to “conflict-free counsel,” the 26-page motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court said. “Their continuing obligations of loyalty and confidentiality towards both clients conflicts (sic) with their duty to provide K. Kealoha with a vigorous defense.”

Federal prosecutors said Breiner additionally should be disqualified because he has represented other clients in cases against each of the Kealohas. Breiner represented multiple plaintiffs suing Louis Kealoha, in his capacity as police chief, for civil rights violations, court documents said. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ordered Breiner off one of the cases, noting, “Mr. Breiner’s divided loyalties present irreconcilable conflicts and threaten a quagmire of additional conflicts.”

Breiner also represented a criminal defendant, Tracy Yoshimura, being prosecuted by Katherine Kealoha and who later sued her for malicious prosecution, the filing said.

The case against Yoshimura was dismissed in May 2015, but he was indicted again in February 2016. “Although K. Kealoha was not the assigned prosecutor, she apparently discussed the substance of the case with Mr. Breiner,” the motion said. “In a sworn statement given on July 27, 2016, Yoshimura claimed that Mr. Breiner provided him with confidential information obtained from K. Kea­loha about his new case.”

“Mr. Breiner’s dueling and simultaneous representations — and the resulting divided loyalties and ethical responsibilities due to his former clients — raise a host of ethical and constitutional concerns about his ability to operate free from impermissible conflict, and preclude him from representing either L. Kealoha or K. Kealoha,” the document said.

Asked by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to comment, Breiner said in a text message, “This motion reflects the length to which the government will go to remove any obstacles in pursuit of a conviction, including the Kealohas’ right to choice of counsel.”

Prosecutors said Sumida has another potentially serious conflict of interest because he is “a witness to events likely to be relevant at trial,” the filing said.

“Because Mr. Sumida cannot ethically serve as both an advocate and a witness at trial, prudence counsels in favor of avoiding such a pitfall … by disqualifying him as counsel,” the motion said.

Among the allegations against Katherine Kealoha is that she created a fictitious assistant named Alison Lee Wong who allegedly acted as a notary in some of the incidents detailed in the indictment.

“Mr. Sumida is potentially a witness to the fabrication of a document used in state court proceedings,” the motion said. The circumstance could place Sumida in an “untenable position,” the filing said.

Sumida might also be called as a potential witness tied to the prosecution’s charge that Katherine Kealoha attempted to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation, the motion said.

The filing alleges that Katherine Kealoha met with grand jury witnesses to instruct them “before and after their appearances,” and that at least one of those meetings took place in Sumida’s law office.