I've been loosely following this case from early on. Like most cases I follow, I generally don't post unless/until there's something I have a strong opinion on, or a topic that may not have been broached. I'll preface by saying I don't know anything about the lawyer, their involvement, nor any of the known or speculated motives.
From my professional experience, as well as casual observation of cases I've followed here, having a lawyer on board is commonplace. In today's litigious society, most people are aware that having legal expert available, regardless of one's involvement, is akin to having car insurance before operating a vehicle.
Again, having no idea the specific motive in this instance, I can offer a strong reasoning (simply MOO from my 17 yrs in LE) why a lawyer may be involved w/ regards to searches. I'm not aware of the exact areas that are being searched, but SOMEBODY owns land/property that's being searched. If there's strong evidence found, that can be used to tie into a suspect, assist in obtaining warrants, or ultimately lead to an arrest, etc., this evidence is now exposed to the rest of the judicial process. If evidence is obtained from an area where there's been no search warrant issued, and events following this discovery lead to an arrest, the evidence now becomes "fruits of the poisonous tree". I'll try to give a seemingly innocuous example --
A group of searches are organized to perform a grid search of an open field belonging to the county of ________. Directly adjacent to this field is private property. The exact line of property is not specifically drawn out. (Keeping in mind, these volunteer searchers are under the direction of LE.) A searcher, unknowingly, is a few feet into property that is privately owned. On that property an item belonging to a victim is found, and that item happens to contain fingerprints. Those fingerprints belong to the owner of the said property it's found on. After further investigation, the property owner is determined to be the suspect, and eventually the defendant in the disappearance, death, etc. of the victim. According to the courts, LE did not have a search warrant for defendant's property. The defense argues that the searcher, under the direction of LE, was searching the defendant's property w/out a search warrant issued by the courts. The evidentiary item was seized illegally. Furthermore, anything else obtained due to the discovery of this initial evidence (search warrant, arrest warrant, confession, etc.) is "fruits of the poisonous tree".
This is just my take on why a lawyer may involve themselves in a search.
IMO MOO
Thanks for reading.
There's a TON of great work being done by you guys/gals, and some very strong theories.