My feeling is once BL is arrested, this attorney will go away and they will have to hire someone else; or if no funds are there he will get a public defender. But the family will likely need criminal defense attorneys also. So I don't think Bertolino has done anything wrong or unethical yet. His only criminal defense knowledge is traffic, DUI and Assaults, per his webpage. So I actually agree with you about skating on the edge of unethical, but not yet crossed that line. I actually posted about this earlier. Then I reflected, it's okay that he is like that because I want these people brought to justice. And I don't think his incompetence rises to the level where the family could use that as any sort of defense later.
Completely agree it doesn't seem it's an ineffective counsel situation. I'm coming at it from an ethical standpoint. Not merely "could I get disbarred" (or disciplined), though obviously those should be concerns, but rather "what is the ethical thing to do, given that I [he] am a member of the Bar, and not only am I bound by stated rules of professional responsibility (guardrails), but I also believe in the principles that those rules are intended to ensure - namely, fair representation and a special obligation to those who rely on me for my legal counsel"?
Internal and external ethics, if you will.
If I have a potential client come to me asking for advice involving law in which I'm completely inexperienced, and the potential consequences involve literal freedom - I'm bringing in someone equipped to advise and/or handle it.
Even smaller things: ex.: I'm not a t&e lawyer. If a friend wants me to handle their fairly routine estate planning, then sure - I'm competent, and I can read the tax code and research what I need to. But if they bring a complicated, high-dollar situation, I'll give general advice and help - up to the point that I'm not
positive my advice is accurate and legally maximizing the benefit to them. And part of my advice to them on the front end is going to be 1) i may want to at least bring in someone with specific experience to review/work with me, and 2) if it gets
really complex or legally dicey, I may refer them to someone else entirely.
Clients come to lawyers because they need very specific and important advice. We as attorneys have an obligation to reflect honestly on whether we are competent to provide that to then, whether or not we think we could successfully fight an ethics investigation.
SB may know what he's doing and that what is needed strictly legally speaking right now is well within his competency. But IF he is texting with reporters, or IF he is telling someone who might, at some point, have interests adverse to or unaligned with those of his clients, that they don't need an attorney - whoo, child.
