All things Cynthia Baldwin

[Rlaub44]

She may have representing them as employees of the University, as part of the University, but not individually. That is a distinction that has been made.

We have made that distinction, but she claims she was at the GJ only as an observer representing PSU. Otherwise, there would be no issue with the men stating in court that they were accompanied by their counsel, Cynthia Baldwin.

She has clarified that the men were mistaken, although she didn't hear them make that statement. This is also why people are in arms about her being allowed to sit in on the Grand Jury.

She is clearly NOT claiming she was representing the men as employees of the University at the Grand Jury, but the AG's release indicates that they believe she was.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We have made that distinction, but she claims she was at the GJ only as an observer representing PSU. Otherwise, there would be no issue with the men stating in court that they were accompanied by their counsel, Cynthia Baldwin.

She has clarified that the men were mistaken, although she didn't hear them make that statement. This is also why people are in arms about her being allowed to sit in on the Grand Jury.

She is clearly NOT claiming she was representing the men as employees of the University at the Grand Jury, but the AG's release indicates that they believe she was.

Actually, Baldwin might and probably was representing them as employees. She did make it clear to them, even by Curley's own admission, that they could hire their own attorneys. They were also aware that Paterno did.

There is another issue. Even if she was representing them personally, she might have an ethical obligation to report the perjury. Bill Clinton's attorney, Bennett had to and did.

I think the AG might win this one.

 

[Rlaub44]

The only action in question is why was she permitted to be present for the testimony, ultimately. She disclosed that she was representing the University, and not Curley or Schultz. The judge permitted it. Granted, that is what she is saying, but the judge should be able to verify it. Baldwin is not charged with perjury.

Actually, Baldwin might and probably was representing them as employees. She did make it clear to them, even by Curley's own admission, that they could hire their own attorneys. They were also aware that Paterno did.

There is another issue. Even if she was representing them personally, she might have an ethical obligation to report the perjury. Bill Clinton's attorney, Bennett had to and did.

I think the AG might win this one.

You seem to be moving the goalposts here a bit. You have been a staunch proponent that Baldwin wasn't representing the men at the GJ, at one point even suggesting that they weren't acting as agents of the University; now in this post, you seem to be warming up to the idea that she probably was there to represent the men in their capacity as University administrators.

My point is, that is what she has been lying about all along, in my opinion. I'd feel much better about her actions if she would admit that she was there to represent the administrators at Spanier's direction, but ethically/legally she could not suborn perjury and therefore had to testify to that.

That line of thought would at least make sense, but she has never claimed that- she has steadfastly maintained she only attended the GJ as an observer. Now why would she claim that, when it is apparent to ALL of us, the AG, other legal observers, etc. that it was just not so?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You seem to be moving the goalposts here a bit. You have been a staunch proponent that Baldwin wasn't representing the men at the GJ, at one point even suggesting that they weren't acting as agents of the University; now in this post, you seem to be warming up to the idea that she probably was there to represent the men in their capacity as University administrators.

That is the difference. Baldwin was representing the University and Spanier, Curley, amd Schultz were there as part of the University.

My point is, that is what she has been lying about all along, in my opinion. I'd feel much better about her actions if she would admit that she was there to represent the administrators at Spanier's direction, but ethically/legally she could not suborn perjury and therefore had to testify to that.

Even that is consistent with her statements.

That line of thought would at least make sense, but she has never claimed that- she has steadfastly maintained she only attended the GJ as an observer. Now why would she claim that, when it is apparent to ALL of us, the AG, other legal observers, etc. that it was just not so?

She claimed that she was University Counsel, representing the University.

 

[Rlaub44]

She claimed that she was University Counsel, representing the University.

The AG believes otherwise:

Rather than stepping into the battle among the former colleagues, prosecutors left little doubt in a motion filed this month about Baldwin's own description of her role at the time.
Despite her current insistence to the contrary, "the notes of grand jury testimony . . . indicate that attorney Baldwin was identified as the defendants' counsel," wrote Deputy Attorney General Bruce R. Beemer in a Nov. 14 filing.
Still, he argued, whether she represented any of the men has no bearing on the charges against them
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-28/news/35412774_1_curley-and-schultz-tim-curley-grand-jurors

 

[Rlaub44]

This is the AG's filing in response to Schultz and Curley's motion to dismiss. Items # 17 and 36 are illustrative of the AG admitting that Baldwin represented the defendants.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ibus Pretrial Motions - November 14, 2012.pdf

On page 20, it demonstrates that the defendants did not only identify Baldwin as their counsel during questioning, but also in their oath before Judge Feudale.

The AG's arguments appear sound, and her testimony may well be allowed; however, it is becoming an exercise in parsing and semantics to act as if Baldwin was not representing Schultz, Curley and Spanier at the grand jury.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

RLaub, it still comes out to representing the "Big Three" personally, or representing them as part of the University.

 

[Rlaub44]

Thanks for posting this - it is very informative. I found the section beginning on pg 15 about concurrent representation particularly helpful.

"Likewise, a court has determined that relationship exists when the Constituent identifies the lawyer as his counsel to outsiders and the attorney does not clarify his role."​

. . .
"The formation of an attorney-client relationship between the Constituent and corporate counsel hinges on the reasonable belief of the Constituent and the attorney’s actions in light of that belief."

These quotes from your link above support the theory that Ms. Baldwin may not be as in the clear as her attorney would like us to believe.

RLaub, it still comes out to representing the "Big Three" personally, or representing them as part of the University.

I understand that - as per the sections I quoted above from StellarsJay's link, the distinction was blurred enough at the grand jury to provide that personal relationship, as the AG has seemingly admitted.

Baldwin herself hasn't even admitted that she was representing them as part of the University - she is on record claiming she attended the hearings only to monitor on behalf of Penn State.

If you believe her tale of not hearing any of the men name her as their counsel, I don't know what else to say. If you don't believe it, then why is she making that ridiculous claim?

Truth be told, I think she just picked the wrong story in the beginning. As I have opined before, had she just said that she was representing the men as part of the University, nothing would be in question now, but she chose to push the point that she wasn't representing them in any capacity, which required her to create tall tales to stick to her original position.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Baldwin herself hasn't even admitted that she was representing them as part of the University - she is on record claiming she attended the hearings only to monitor on behalf of Penn State.

I think she did, saying that she represented the University and that they were employees of the University.

If you believe her tale of not hearing any of the men name her as their counsel, I don't know what else to say. If you don't believe it, then why is she making that ridiculous claim?

Truth be told, I think she just picked the wrong story in the beginning. As I have opined before, had she just said that she was representing the men as part of the University, nothing would be in question now, but she chose to push the point that she wasn't representing them in any capacity, which required her to create tall tales to stick to her original position.

I think there is a legal distinction. She was representing University employees, as University Counsel. Now, I'm wondering if she was present with Harmon?

 

[Rlaub44]

I think she did, saying that she represented the University and that they were employees of the University.

I think there is a legal distinction. She was representing University employees, as University Counsel. Now, I'm wondering if she was present with Harmon?

Good question about Harmon. We know she didn't with Paterno; I don't believe Harmon would have met the criteria under the PSU Office of General Counsel website:
The Office of General Counsel provides legal advice and representation to the Board of Trustees, the President and other administrators in their capacity as agents conducting University business.
http://ogc.psu.edu/

So in the section of your post I bolded, basically you are agreeing with what I have been saying for weeks:

Even if she signed in as representing Penn State, we know that the General Counsel can provide representation to administrators acting as agents of the university. At that time, neither man had perjured themselves yet, so they were only testifying to what they knew and did in their roles as Penn State administrators. So representing PSU meant advising the witnesses in the minds of the judge, prosecutors, and Schultz/Curley themselves.

I guess we agree on her role in the Grand Jury proceedings; it's up to the court to decide if her actions crossed the boundary into providing personal representation; thereby possibly triggering attorney-client privilege not held by the University, and if her awareness of possible perjury then permitted her later testimony.

 

[Twindad]

Since this a case about their actions as PSU administrators, as general counsel didn't Baldwin have the duty to represent them unless they had chosen alternative representation? How would she know they perjured themselves unless she was privy to all the information, not just their statements? It seems as if she's in over her head and unprepared for these types of cases.

 

[StellarsJay]

Schultz has filed notice of intent to sue Cynthia Baldwin.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/12/12/3433552/ex-penn-state-administrator-gary.html#wgt=rcntnews

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is the least of his problems.

 

[Reader]

Gary Schultz set to file lawsuit against woman who claimed to represent him in court

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...uit-against-woman/1cAB8m5y5kyKi3xZW2Uknw.cspx

............Gary Schultz filed what's called a writ of summons in Centre County Court, against Cynthia Baldwin. It explains the allegations he's making against her and states he intends to sue her for malpractice.

Former Penn State Executive Gary Schultz, accused of covering up complaints about Jerry Sandusky, made a civil court filing suggesting a lawsuit is being prepared against Cynthia Baldwin. She's the university's former attorney.

Schultz claims he thought Baldwin was his lawyer and allowed her to represent him at the Grand Jury proceedings two years ago. But at those same proceedings, she also testified against Schultz.......more at link......

 

[Reader]

A look at the woman who could set Spanier, Curley and Schultz free

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...et-Spanier-Curley/Cm4JraEozkG59G9bkpgj6g.cspx

...........Then Penn State President Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz each thought Cynthia Baldwin was their lawyer. But, Baldwin maintains she didn't represent them, she only represented the university.

This confusion could help those three men walk free.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz may end up with a get out of jail free card. All because of Cynthia Baldwin, who used to be the university's lawyer.............

“It's illegal for her to be in the grand jury room, if she's not representing the witnesses and if she is there not representing the witnesses, they believe she's their lawyer, they represented to the grand jury she was their lawyer, they told the judge, if she wasn't then, they were denied their fundamental rights to counsel,” explains former PA Attorney General Walter Cohen. ..............more at link.......

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Remember, however, that their source is a consultant to the defense team.

 

[Reader]

Remember, however, that their source is a consultant to the defense team.

Yes, I'm aware of that...but thought he explained fairly clearly what the basis of the suits against Baldwin are/will be....which I disagree with and don't think will cut bait with the court....it's more or less, to me, these 3 long time Penn. State administrators admitting they were stupid enough to think she was their own personal lawyer, even after she told them they could get their own lawyers, and that they did not know she represented the school. Good grief...Spanier ordered her to attend in order to represent the school, I think because he wanted a spy in there to find out how the other 2 would testify and give him an idea of how much trouble he was in....Baldwin was used but she should have known better....We will see how it turns out....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, I'm aware of that...but thought he explained fairly clearly what the basis of the suits against Baldwin are/will be....which I disagree with and don't think will cut bait with the court....it's more or less, to me, these 3 long time Penn. State administrators admitting they were stupid enough to think she was their own personal lawyer, even after she told them they could get their own lawyers, and that they did not know she represented the school. Good grief...Spanier ordered her to attend in order to represent the school, I think because he wanted a spy in there to find out how the other 2 would testify and give him an idea of how much trouble he was in....Baldwin was used but she should have known better....We will see how it turns out....

I think Spanier also talked to Schultz and Curley directly, so I'm not sure how much spying went on.

 

[Rlaub44]

I think Spanier also talked to Schultz and Curley directly, so I'm not sure how much spying went on.

That is correct. Baldwin told the grand jury that Curley and Schultz "extensively discussed" their testimony with Spanier.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

That is correct. Baldwin told the grand jury that Curley and Schultz "extensively discussed" their testimony with Spanier.

That kind of limits the attorney client privilege argument (but doesn't remove it entirely).