WFTV - STRICKLAND filed complaint against Baez!

[Hell's Belle]

Yes, she does. If Casey tells her attorney information in confidence, such as where Caylee's body was located, never intending to take the witness stand, and the attorney goes on to tell the PI so that the PI can search Suburban Drive on some date, that information would normally be protected by the Attorney Work Product Privilege. However, if Casey also tells her parents the same facts, who go on to AGAIN tell the PI these facts and asking that the PI "GO GET CAYLEE," as DCasey was instructed by someone to do, then Casey has waived the attorney work product privilege that would have covered all of the information given to the PI by Casey's attorney.
Non -attorneys don't have "work product" privileges, so anything done by DCasey at the bequest of the Anthonys will never be "privileged."

I don't see this. Attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are two separate concepts. "Attorney work product privilege" is not a concept that I am familiar with (although, oddly enough, I found a recent Florida Supreme Court decision that uses this conflation). This is why I thought it was so interesting that Judge Strickland didn't say *whose* work product was contained in the 9-page Conway transcript that was sealed. Don't forget, Strickland ruled that, whatever Conway said, it *wasn't* subject to disclosure. Ergo, no waiver.

DCasey was working for the Anthonys AND Brad Conway, the Anthonys' attorney. Are we sure that the DCasey was operating at the direction of the Anthonys and not B Conway? In addition, work performed *for* an attorney can be that attorney's "work product" even if the person performing the work is not an attorney.

 

[mitzi]

This is really huge. Both JB and BC had better start looking for greener pastures.

Are these two going to need attorneys now? Maybe they can represent each other. :crazy:

 

[Searchfortruth]

OK, say Judge S. has learned, through DC's interview, that JB knew where the remains were, thus the Judge knows that JB is aware of his client's guilt...and during the last hearing, I believe it was, JB stated in open court that his client is innocent (which he did, can't remember the exact quote though, something about him realizing that she is more innocent everyday). Could this be an event that a judge would report to the bar ? I did find a site that explained this issue with honesty and lawyers...provided just a snippet...

"A lawyer is never supposed to say something in court he knows to be untrue," according to John. "A lawyer can never mislead a judge or lie to a jury." You can get held in contempt by the judge and/or have the Bar association strip your skin off.

Outside of court, at a press conference, for instance, "it's a different matter," says John. "To say something outside of court you know to be untrue is still wrong. The Bar can do something about it." But a judge isn't likely to step in unless there's a gag order in place.

Of course you have to prove the lawyer knew he/she was lying. Good luck on that one. You also have to pay close attention to what they actually say. It's like Bill Clinton's definition of "is". There's a difference between calling your client "innocent" vs. "not guilty", for instance.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=27984

 

[Chezhire]

I don't see this. Attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are two separate concepts. "Attorney work product privilege" is not a concept that I am familiar with.

DCasey was working for the Anthonys AND Brad Conway, the Anthonys' attorney. Are we sure that the DCasey was operating at the direction of the Anthonys and not B Conway? In addition, work performed *for* an attorney can be that attorney's "work product" even if the person performing the work is not an attorney.

Attorney work product privilege is the doctrine that covers an attorney's work product (e.g., files, notes, etc.) and communications between an attorney and, for example, PI's he needs to help him work up his investigation of a case. It is a distinct and separate privilege from the attorney-client privilege.

I've posted about recent FL cases on attorney's work product and PI's here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3545348#post3545348

I completely agree that work performed for an attorney can be that attorney's work product, but the Anthonys are NOT attorneys nor is JBaez their attorney nor are the Anthonys working for JBaez. Ergo, anything that the Anthonys know is discoverable, including everything they told or instructed their PI, DCasey, to do for them.

 

[mitzi]

These actions must have all come out of Casey's deposition, where Conway was representing him. At one point it went "off the record" and whatever Casey said then is what we are seeing the result of today. He must have told the truth as to exactly why he was searching in that area, who told him to go there, how they found out that information, etc. They are all involved. KC, JB, the rest of the A's, BC and DC.

If this is what happened...could there be other arrests?...as in CA or GA? Oh please, oh please, oh please!!! raying:

 

[Hell's Belle]

Ergo, anything that the Anthonys know is discoverable, including everything they told or instructed their PI, DCasey, to do for them.

However, Judge Strickland ruled on 3/25 that whatever DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009, it WAS work product, it WAS privileged, and it would NOT be disclosed. I have a hard time reconciling that with your waiver argument.

Also, what the Anthonys tell THEIR attorney, Brad Conway, in confidence, IS privileged, and what Brad Conway tells HIS PI, DCasey, to do, could also be considered "work product."

I understand that attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are separate, but I disagree that the work product exemption from disclosure is analytically a privilege in the usual sense of the word. I wish Florida wouldn't use the term "attorney work product privilege."

 

[Chezhire]

OK, say Judge S. has learned, through DC's interview, that JB knew where the remains were, thus the Judge knows that JB is aware of his client's guilt...and during the last hearing, I believe it was, JB stated in open court that his client is innocent (which he did, can't remember the exact quote though, something about him realizing that she is more innocent everyday). Could this be an event that a judge would report to the bar ? I did find a site that explained this issue with honesty and lawyers...provided just a snippet...

"A lawyer is never supposed to say something in court he knows to be untrue," according to John. "A lawyer can never mislead a judge or lie to a jury." You can get held in contempt by the judge and/or have the Bar association strip your skin off.

Outside of court, at a press conference, for instance, "it's a different matter," says John. "To say something outside of court you know to be untrue is still wrong. The Bar can do something about it." But a judge isn't likely to step in unless there's a gag order in place.

Of course you have to prove the lawyer knew he/she was lying. Good luck on that one. You also have to pay close attention to what they actually say. It's like Bill Clinton's definition of "is". There's a difference between calling your client "innocent" vs. "not guilty", for instance.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=27984

Could definitely be the issue here - right along with that pesky little affidavit signed by Casey that he recently attached to a motion..."a crime that I did not commit," yet somehow JBaez knew where the body was...??? hmmm...

 

[passionflower]

On JVM, JB wanted a 'private meeting between himself and Judge" last week,
Judge said 'no'...............and so the speculation is that JB has 'something' and
wanted more discovery before he gives it over????? IIRC

 

[Chezhire]

However, Judge Strickland ruled on 3/25 that whatever DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009, it WAS work product, it WAS privileged, and it would NOT be disclosed. I have a hard time reconciling that with your waiver argument.

I understand that attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are separate. I wish Florida wouldn't use the term "attorney work product privilege."

We're not talking about what DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009. That entire set of events never involved anyone claiming that the Anthonys also knew what DCasey knew. So what we're discussing now, as a hypothetical, wasn't addressed then as an issue.

 

[Marina2]

Could definitely be the issue here - right along with that pesky little affidavit signed by Casey that he recently attached to a motion..."a crime that I did not commit," yet somehow JBaez knew where the body was...??? hmmm...

And, this could all possibly tie in to the secret meeting Baez requested of Judge Strickland.

 

[Hell's Belle]

We're not talking about what DCasey told the cops. That entire set of events never involved anyone claiming that the Anthonys also knew what DCasey knew. So what we're discussing now, as a hypothetical, wasn't addressed then as an issue.

Aren't we? What we're trying to figure out is why Strickland would file a bar complaint against both Baez and Conway (he was responsible for the filing against Conway as well, correct?), and DCasey is a potential nexus.

 

[Chezhire]

Aren't we? What we're trying to figure out is why Strickland would file a bar complaint against both Baez and Conway (he filed against Conway as well, correct?), and DCasey is a potential nexus.

What I've been discussing here is whether or not JBaez is in deep doodoo.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Could definitely be the issue here - right along with that pesky little affidavit signed by Casey that he recently attached to a motion..."a crime that I did not commit," yet somehow JBaez knew where the body was...??? hmmm...

Yep, pesky little affidavit !

 

[Hell's Belle]

What I've been discussing here is whether or not JBaez is in deep doodoo.

As a rule of thumb the doodoo is very deep when it is the judge who is filing the bar complaint.

I admit I have a morbid fascination with exactly which of the potential ethical violations might be at play here. This case is like a bar exam question.

 

[whiteangora]

If this is what happened...could there be other arrests?...as in CA or GA? Oh please, oh please, oh please!!! raying:

I don't want you to pray alone, let me join you.
raying::gavel::gavel::behindbar

 

[NSS]

I read the WFTV article and am confused now. The following from WFTV.

Sheaffer says no one is legally obligated to call 911 after finding a body and Casey's defense team would be legally obligated not to if it would incriminate her.

"He is prohibited by the rules of ethics from ever divulging that information," Sheaffer said.
http://www.wftv.com/news/19130417/detail.html#-

The article goes on to say that they believe the complaint is something other than instructions to not contact LE if a body was found. Also, now BC has a complaint as well ?

Whilst individuals have no duty to report any finds, and JB is obliged to say nothing - the problem is that JB instructed DC not to report.
That sounds conspiritorial.

Oh and whilst Baez would never have to reveal that he knew where the body was, (I believe) he is also obliged not to lie about it(the only option is to remain silent). His various KC is innocent remarks, and Caylee is alive remarks were lies if he knew there was a body.

 

[Marina2]

Could definitely be the issue here - right along with that pesky little affidavit signed by Casey that he recently attached to a motion..."a crime that I did not commit," yet somehow JBaez knew where the body was...??? hmmm...

Oh, but the next thing will be that she knew where the body was but didn't kill her. :waitasec:
They're weaving a very tangled web.

 

[Jolynna]

Attorney work product privilege is the doctrine that covers an attorney's work product (e.g., files, notes, etc.) and communications between an attorney and, for example, PI's he needs to help him work up his investigation of a case. It is a distinct and separate privilege from the attorney-client privilege.

I've posted about recent FL cases on attorney's work product and PI's here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3545348#post3545348

I completely agree that work performed for an attorney can be that attorney's work product, but the Anthonys are NOT attorneys nor is JBaez their attorney nor are the Anthonys working for JBaez. Ergo, anything that the Anthonys know is discoverable, including everything they told or instructed their PI, DCasey, to do for them.

Wouldn't Casey's rights be violated if DCasey told George or Cindy information he had obtained as "work product" without Casey's permission?

I DO believe George and Cindy knew Caylee was dead and that DCasey was going to go look for her. But, maybe P.I. DCasey was their source,not their daughter, Casey.

How would a judge make that right?

 

[Chezhire]

However, Judge Strickland ruled on 3/25 that whatever DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009, it WAS work product, it WAS privileged, and it would NOT be disclosed. I have a hard time reconciling that with your waiver argument.

Also, what the Anthonys tell THEIR attorney, Brad Conway, in confidence, IS privileged, and what Brad Conway tells HIS PI, DCasey, to do, could also be considered "work product."

I understand that attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are separate, but I disagree that the work product exemption from disclosure is analytically a privilege in the usual sense of the word. I wish Florida wouldn't use the term "attorney work product privilege."

We're not talking about what DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009. That entire set of events never involved anyone claiming that the Anthonys also knew what DCasey knew. So what we're discussing now, as a hypothetical, wasn't addressed then as an issue.

Just because on 1/7/2009 DCasey related something to the cops that was later, in March, determined by Judge S to have been confidential/privileged information does NOT mean that things/information being received by DCasey via Casey or JBaez is still protected by any privilege, nor does it indicate the continued existence of a privilege. It merely means that on said date, 1/7/2009, he related information to the cops that was privileged at the time that he, DCasey, became privvy to said information. The date said information was related to the cops certainly doesn't indicate to us when it was related to DCasey by JBaez. :waitasec:

 

[ThoughtElf]

This couldn't be something about JB's incivility and argumentative nature in court hearings, could it? And i don't mean normal courtroom arguments, I mean behaviors like baiting Ashton. Even Judge Strickland stated he was 'tired of it.'

This would fall under professional conduct, but would a Judge ever file a complaint over something like this?

(Not that I personally believe that is what this complaint is about - just wondering)