2010.08.22 Brad Conway speaks out on Steph Watts show

[Steely Dan]

Nah, it's not you
IMO he just wanted a new name to the firm that makes him sound better, he is a high profile attorney now isn't he? <sarcasm>
:twocents:

Why the sarcasm? :waitasec: He really is a high profile attorney. It's just for all of the wrong reasons. JMO

 

[beach]

I am thinking he is neither "hero" or "bad guy". Why should we look to attorneys as either one? They are just working their profession. Sometimes they end up representing good people and sometimes the opposite.
I guess it would be great to have a "hero" come out of this. But, I just don't think it's going to happen. The prosecutors will present their side, the defense will present their side, the outcome will be what it is.
Poor Caylee really has gotten lost in all of this.
A big THANK YOU for those who have memorialized her in any way. You are better people than any of those involved in this case, imo.

Here here, wellspoke ohio. Attorneys are not supposed to be heros. They are supposed to represent their clients. Sometimes very unpopular ones. Sometimes very guilty ones. I work for and with attorneys every day. Never yet seen one wearing a cape. Never yet met one who would want to. They just want to do their jobs.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

A huge thanks to both ohiogirl and tlcox!


I'm rather surprised to read all the visceral reactions in re. Brad Conway. Anyone who thinks he was supposed to control Cindy or make her do ANYTHING just because he represented the Anthonys, has never worked in law with a client who is difficult to control. I have worked with clients who you can talk to and advise 'til the cows come home, but they are gonna do whatever the heck they want to do anyway. Yes, we speak with them and do our best to impress upon them the gravity of their actions...how badly they are hurting their own case, but some of them just continue on. Some of these hard-to-control clients react emotionally, others are control freaks who think they can outsmart the other side (and if they slip up, they assume their atty. will handle the mess they created :banghead...then there are those who just don't give a darn and are gonna do whatever they want anyway, no matter what anyone says. Cindy Anthony was a nightmare client, however you want to label her. Think back to the civil depo - there is NO ONE on the face of this earth that was going to be able to control Cindy during that deposition. She thought she knew everything...including the legal definition of 'relevance'. Absolutely nothing Conway could have said to her was going to change her demeanor that day. Heck, I was surprised he convinced her to put her microphone back on after she ripped it off and they finally took a break.

I imagine Cindy is absolutely furious that Conway resigned because he was not willing to back her allegations against Mark Nejame. Of ALL people, I betcha that chapped her royally. Pretty darn sure that CA views BC's resignation as being disloyal to the 'cause'.

fwiw, I think this was just a welcome 'out' for Conway. He COULD have remained their attorney...he CHOSE not to. I guarantee that BC and MN spoke shortly after the defense filed that response, complete with email exhibits. I imagine Conway knew about the conference HHJP scheduled for early Monday morning. He could have waited a couple of more hours to see what Judge Perry's reaction was going to be and if it was likely he would become a potential witness. IMO, he had had enough of CA and more than enough of Baez. He didn't want to wait....he wanted OUT.

I do not believe Conway was in it for the money. I think he did a pretty good job, considering the clients he had to work with. He sounded totally relieved to me to be rid of the responsibility/headache.

 

[LambChop]

BC could have tried "zip it". Seemed to work for JB. jmo

 

[beach]

BC could have tried "zip it". Seemed to work for JB. jmo

:waitasec: I'm confused as to what you are referencing. When did JB quit talking? You mean not do the interview?

 

[LolaMoon08]

:waitasec: I'm confused as to what you are referencing. When did JB quit talking? You mean not do the interview?

JB told Cindy to "zip it" during the John Morgan civil deposition.

 

[gitana1]

Good grief. It's almost like he has Stockholm syndrome. :waitasec:

I disagree. I think when you meet clients as an attorney you sometimes become connected to them or at least sympathize with their pain, even when they do terrible things. See, we only hear the A's when they have something to say about the case or casey and what they say in connection to the case is usually really awful stuff that infuriates us. But BC knew them in a different context and probably saw another side of them that we never see. He heard them talk about many different things and saw them act in a less defensive manner. (Clients are usually more honest with their attorneys). He felt sorry for them, IMO, as a result of his different perspective and due to what they have to deal with.
I have never had a problem with Brad Conway. I think he has always acted professionally. I believe he has sympathy for the A's but I also think they have annoyed him or even angered him at times and this case has been a huge pain for him as well. I think he felt he could not dump them before but things build up with certain clients and this latest nonsense, especially seeing how they treated their other attorney, was likely the last straw. He is stating his allegiance to them and willingness to still help, half, IMO, because he still feels for them but also half because it is unprofessional to say rotten things about former clients.
I don't think everyone associated with the A's is awful just because they associate with the A's. I liked both Nejame and BC throughout. I remember people just skewering Nejame on this board, insulting his looks, his motives, his intelligence, etc. When he dumped the A's, that totally changed. Now almost everyone loves him.
I think both of these guys have done the best they can for clients that are likely seriously disturbed and dysfunctional. They acted professionally under the circumstances and I applaud them both for that. :twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

Public Attorney

Duh....thank you.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Intermezzo]

JB told Cindy to "zip it" during the John Morgan civil deposition.

IIRC Baez told Cindy to "zip it" during the Depo with the State Prosecutors...Baez was not at the Morgan depo and neither was the Civil Lawyer (Kasen) who represents Casey in the Civil case.

But I could be wrong :angel:

 

[logicalgirl]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

A huge thanks to both ohiogirl and tlcox!


I'm rather surprised to read all the visceral reactions in re. Brad Conway. Anyone who thinks he was supposed to control Cindy or make her do ANYTHING just because he represented the Anthonys, has never worked in law with a client who is difficult to control. I have worked with clients who you can talk to and advise 'til the cows come home, but they are gonna do whatever the heck they want to do anyway. Yes, we speak with them and do our best to impress upon them the gravity of their actions...how badly they are hurting their own case, but some of them just continue on. Some of these hard-to-control clients react emotionally, others are control freaks who think they can outsmart the other side (and if they slip up, they assume their atty. will handle the mess they created :banghead...then there are those who just don't give a darn and are gonna do whatever they want anyway, no matter what anyone says. Cindy Anthony was a nightmare client, however you want to label her. Think back to the civil depo - there is NO ONE on the face of this earth that was going to be able to control Cindy during that deposition. She thought she knew everything...including the legal definition of 'relevance'. Absolutely nothing Conway could have said to her was going to change her demeanor that day. Heck, I was surprised he convinced her to put her microphone back on after she ripped it off and they finally took a break.

I imagine Cindy is absolutely furious that Conway resigned because he was not willing to back her allegations against Mark Nejame. Of ALL people, I betcha that chapped her royally. Pretty darn sure that CA views BC's resignation as being disloyal to the 'cause'.

fwiw, I think this was just a welcome 'out' for Conway. He COULD have remained their attorney...he CHOSE not to. I guarantee that BC and MN spoke shortly after the defense filed that response, complete with email exhibits. I imagine Conway knew about the conference HHJP scheduled for early Monday morning. He could have waited a couple of more hours to see what Judge Perry's reaction was going to be and if it was likely he would become a potential witness. IMO, he had had enough of CA and more than enough of Baez. He didn't want to wait....he wanted OUT.

I do not believe Conway was in it for the money. I think he did a pretty good job, considering the clients he had to work with. He sounded totally relieved to me to be rid of the responsibility/headache.

You are absolutely right Beach, but why continue to work with them then if you can't protect them from themselves?:waitasec:

It's not like he needed the (zero) income.:banghead:

 

[JWG]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

A huge thanks to both ohiogirl and tlcox!


I'm rather surprised to read all the visceral reactions in re. Brad Conway. Anyone who thinks he was supposed to control Cindy or make her do ANYTHING just because he represented the Anthonys, has never worked in law with a client who is difficult to control. I have worked with clients who you can talk to and advise 'til the cows come home, but they are gonna do whatever the heck they want to do anyway. Yes, we speak with them and do our best to impress upon them the gravity of their actions...how badly they are hurting their own case, but some of them just continue on. Some of these hard-to-control clients react emotionally, others are control freaks who think they can outsmart the other side (and if they slip up, they assume their atty. will handle the mess they created :banghead...then there are those who just don't give a darn and are gonna do whatever they want anyway, no matter what anyone says. Cindy Anthony was a nightmare client, however you want to label her. Think back to the civil depo - there is NO ONE on the face of this earth that was going to be able to control Cindy during that deposition. She thought she knew everything...including the legal definition of 'relevance'. Absolutely nothing Conway could have said to her was going to change her demeanor that day. Heck, I was surprised he convinced her to put her microphone back on after she ripped it off and they finally took a break.

I imagine Cindy is absolutely furious that Conway resigned because he was not willing to back her allegations against Mark Nejame. Of ALL people, I betcha that chapped her royally. Pretty darn sure that CA views BC's resignation as being disloyal to the 'cause'.

fwiw, I think this was just a welcome 'out' for Conway. He COULD have remained their attorney...he CHOSE not to. I guarantee that BC and MN spoke shortly after the defense filed that response, complete with email exhibits. I imagine Conway knew about the conference HHJP scheduled for early Monday morning. He could have waited a couple of more hours to see what Judge Perry's reaction was going to be and if it was likely he would become a potential witness. IMO, he had had enough of CA and more than enough of Baez. He didn't want to wait....he wanted OUT.

I do not believe Conway was in it for the money. I think he did a pretty good job, considering the clients he had to work with. He sounded totally relieved to me to be rid of the responsibility/headache.

BBM ...

Can't wait to see how Cindy spins it in a letter to KC ... when it is released :thumb:

 

[beach]

You are absolutely right Beach, but why continue to work with them then if you can't protect them from themselves?:waitasec:

It's not like he needed the (zero) income.:banghead:

I would refer back to gitana1's post above. I totally agree with her.

Luckily, even the difficult clients aren't anywhere near as out of control as CA. However, even difficult clients NEED legal representation - even if they think they know it all. Like gitana said, BC saw a more vulnerable side of Cindy & George than we have seen, or will likely ever see. I don't think Conway liked a lot of things CA has said or done, however I believe he felt a loyalty (professional and personal) to continue to represent them to the best of his ability. It was when Baez knowingly made an overt false representation of the waiver of conflict (that it was executed in exchange for BC being allowed to view the TES docs), that was when it crossed the line for him. He refused to support the falsehood, even by remaining silent. I have mad respect for Conway exposing it for the lie it is. Rightfully so, imo. I am sure Nejame appreciates and respects it, too.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Duh....thank you.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Actually it does not stand for public attorney. It's a legal term to describe a separate legal entity. It's a form of incorporating a group of professionals (such as physicians, or dentists, or attorneys, or accountants) to allow the individuals protection from lawsuits.

 

[magic-cat]

Attorneys are judged, by me, on why they do something. If an attorney believes that mounting a vigorous defense for everybody makes our country stronger because it uses the full value of the constitution and helps eliminate mistakes by LE then more power to him, in my opinion it's a worthy reason. I couldn't do it but God bless those who do for that reason.

If an attorney is strictly in it for the money or fame then they don't get much respect from me. If they willingly go along with trying to pin a murder on an innocent person, and then another innocent person, and then another innocent person, they don't get my respect.

Nobody, should ever want to be viewed as wearing a cape but some attorneys deserve them and should wear them proudly. I am not a hero worship guy but there is one person I would call a hero to me.

Perfectly stated...it's NOT that they are attorneys JUST doing their jobs...they are using and abusing an already overtaxed and feeble system. They don't have to be heroes, but they CAN be honorable ethical upstanding human beings while doing their jobs...they don't have to turn in to the scum bags they represent!

Like, would I give a lot of credit to a mafia hit-man because he was REALLY good at what he does? Not likely, and neither do I credit those who behave so reprehensibly and use the law and the media as their own private playground. An attorney, to me, should be beyond reproach, in their words and in their actions, and that extends all the way, in my estimation, to the representation of their client. You don't have to become as your clients or worse in order to adequately and even zealously defend them.

 

[magic-cat]

You are absolutely right Beach, but why continue to work with them then if you can't protect them from themselves?:waitasec:

It's not like he needed the (zero) income.:banghead:

Media hound...
Free advertising...
Limelight...
:blushing:

 

[magic-cat]

JB told Cindy to "zip it" during the John Morgan civil deposition.

No no no...he did not tell her that then. He told her that during a state deposition. We heard audio on that one but no video...The state was setting them up for the kill on the sale of Caylee items and that was when he shut her down...rudely...

 

[magic-cat]

IIRC Baez told Cindy to "zip it" during the Depo with the State Prosecutors...Baez was not at the Morgan depo and neither was the Civil Lawyer (Kasen) who represents Casey in the Civil case.

But I could be wrong :angel:

Nope...you are absolutely right.

 

[spqr]

My vote goes for "Professional Association". Along the lines of a LLC, C Corp, etc...for liability reasons.

 

[logicalgirl]

I would refer back to gitana1's post above. I totally agree with her.

Luckily, even the difficult clients aren't anywhere near as out of control as CA. However, even difficult clients NEED legal representation - even if they think they know it all. Like gitana said, BC saw a more vulnerable side of Cindy & George than we have seen, or will likely ever see. I don't think Conway liked a lot of things CA has said or done, however I believe he felt a loyalty (professional and personal) to continue to represent them to the best of his ability. It was when Baez knowingly made an overt false representation of the waiver of conflict (that it was executed in exchange for BC being allowed to view the TES docs), that was when it crossed the line for him. He refused to support the falsehood, even by remaining silent. I have mad respect for Conway exposing it for the lie it is. Rightfully so, imo. I am sure Nejame appreciates and respects it, too.

Truly I respect your opinions and the reasons you've stated for your beliefs, but I'm going to choose to disagree. Difficult clients will always need representation but I believe they portray a client and a legal firm in a bad light. I think if enough reasonable and respected people refused to represent them, they may learn to respect a professional they are paying to represent them. Afterall, how many people stay awake during surgery to tell the doctor to make that incision just a little to the left? Professionals need to draw the line and if they don't, then let's seek out the real agenda. Surely one should set aside concern for vulnerabilities when the client is obstructing justice and may be charged. IMO

 

[faefrost]

Nah, it's not you
IMO he just wanted a new name to the firm that makes him sound better, he is a high profile attorney now isn't he? <sarcasm>
:twocents:

Exactly. The P.A. probably stands for "Personal Attorney" a common term for a small single lawyer law office that handles a variety or personal business such as criminal or civil matters, etc. It is a good name for a lawyer looking for clients off the street or from the yellow pages.

Whereas "The Baez Law Firm" is a LAW FIRM, with all of the more grandiose expectations that it may whip up. It implies a larger more experienced operation with a true team of lawyers ready to handle your complex needs.

It's all pure marketing and ego bullplop. Every letter and period of it. But while the Bar has rules about name changes, noone will ever question the adding or removal of that PA from any signage or stationary. I think the entirety of there response would be "update your stationary to reflect however you are spelling it this week".

 

[logicalgirl]

Exactly. The P.A. probably stands for "Personal Attorney" a common term for a small single lawyer law office that handles a variety or personal business such as criminal or civil matters, etc. It is a good name for a lawyer looking for clients off the street or from the yellow pages.

Whereas "The Baez Law Firm" is a LAW FIRM, with all of the more grandiose expectations that it may whip up. It implies a larger more experienced operation with a true team of lawyers ready to handle your complex needs.

It's all pure marketing and ego bullplop. Every letter and period of it. But while the Bar has rules about name changes, noone will ever question the adding or removal of that PA from any signage or stationary. I think the entirety of there response would be "update your stationary to reflect however you are spelling it this week".

I love the term bullplop!!! Bullplop - excellent!! It is so visual!!!

Oh and your comment was sterling also of course.
:dance: