Thanks for your reply. My understanding is (from this mornings GMA interview) that the L's have not been completely silent in the investigation. I think it is good advice not to talk until you have the lay of the land (so to speak). It may be, that the L's don't really know anything of worth, but that may not do them any favours either.
The fact is, we cannot undo what have been done and we cannot unsay what has been said.
We can agree to disagree, whilst SB's response is far from perfect - I am worried that if nothing was said at all, that would have aggravated the protestors further, and that is another consideration that he had to factor in. No one is perfect.
No, you're right, they haven't - as he did go on about in the NBC interview yesterday, "conversations were had" at some point, though those would have been through or at least with and managed by the Ls' attorney.
The concern is (based on observation, outcome, and SB'S own words) a lack of experience and/or a certain style and/or a misapprehension of the dynamics and relative power positions, throughout the last 6-7 weeks. SB has indicated that his approach has not been supple or particularly agile (and that is a style that works for many attorneys and/or in certain types of situations); this is consistent with his self-described career-long approach to his standing as an attorney.
What works for Long Island real estate and low-level criminal practice isn't likely to work for every situation. I've dealt with attorneys like this in transactional situations. Not necessarily bad lawyers, but there's sometimes an approach that undermines their client's bargaining power - David & Goliath issues, over-personal investment in the thing, insecurity, or just needing to scale it up professionally and tactically. Some adapt brilliantly from the start . Some reach a good outcome because they adapt their own approach to the situation. Some never do but the clients work it out themselves. And some tank the deal or cause the result to be less favorable to their client than it would have been if their lawyer hadn't seen every item as a nail needing hammering.
(
And full disclosure - I still cringe over a time early in my career realizing that I myself, even representing "Goliath," was being way too "TOO" in negotiations (difficult, rigid, aggressive and posturing) and actually hindering productive work. Thank God I realized I was way out of order before I did any real harm, but it serves as an uncomfortable reminder decades later.)
Good lawyers bring humility, not insecurity /over compensation to their work. They need to be able to assess themselves candidly, because they are there *purely* to represent their client(s).
And fwiw, I don't care so much about Bertolino's relationship with the media or his opinions of "John Q. Public.". Yes, a really good lawyer with tons of media experience could have played that very differently, but even an average lawyer thinking properly would have thought more and said less. Hire a consultant or seek formal support from other members of the Bar with more experience. What's said casually in the men's room is not how it should be said on TV.
In any case, media stuff is legal-outcome-wise relevant really only to the extent that it did or didn't make LE's jobs harder. What matters/mattered is any legal and other serious impacts to his clients and their representation.
