BC Waived Conflict re: Mark NJ repping TES- what does this mean?

[Chezhire]

ITA. It also means C & G can't complain about MN representing TES in the future. In my experience, clients often turn on their lawyers, and I think it was prudent for them to get it, assuming that's what they did.

:waitasec: What is your experience you're referring to?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

:waitasec: We don't know whether or not any "waiver" was obtained prior to today. No, I don't think today's hearing was BC's or MN's waste of time - JBaez had filed yet another ridiculous motion and they had to appear and short-circuit it as fast as possible, which they did. ***Remember: JBaez was the one who raised this "conflict" non-issue - not Mark N or Brad C.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I get enough of that with other attorneys on a daily basis. The beauty of WS is that we can agree to disagree.

Yep...and let's not forget, even in Appeals Courts with the brightest of legal minds, decisions often come out 3-2. And then a different bench 5 years later may come out 4-1 going the other way. The law is a funny thing.

 

[Chezhire]

Yep...and let's not forget, even in Appeals Courts with the brightest of legal minds, decisions often come out 3-2. And then a different bench 5 years later may come out 4-1 going the other way. The law is a funny thing.

True. Too bad the FL bar association's rules of professionalism aren't "law" - then one could follow them the way one would follow lawsuit/case opinions.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

True. Too bad the FL bar association's rules of professionalism aren't "law" - then one could follow them the way one would follow lawsuit/case opinions.

Where I come from we have disciplinary tribunals to deal with breaches of the rules governing professional conduct....many of their decisions are published. And, someone appearing before them has a right to Appeal the decision of the Tribunal to "real courts" so to speak, so in fact the decisions, or at least the interpretation of the legislation/regulations, can in fact become case law, so to speak.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I'm wondering....does anyone think this means Cindy is softening towards TM? I really feel the family owes him a huge apology and big thank you and think it would be really nice if they sent monies donated to them to TES.

 

[lin]

Is this a sign that the Anthonys might begin to cooperate with the prosecution?

The Anthonys we have become accustomed to would have come out swinging, screaming conflict if it would have any affect at all on helping to make things more difficult for the SA.

Instead, they seem to be siding with MNJ and TES rather than the defense by not backing the JB complaint that there is a conflict.

What do you all think?

Conflict of interest just happens to be something I researched extensively under Florida law last year. The ethical obligations of an attorney are pretty clear and there is a lot of case law on the subject. In some instances, attorneys have been booted off cases because a secretary changed jobs and came to work for opposing counsel. However, while in this case I do not see a clear violation, from what I know of MN, I would bet he cleared this potentially perceived conflict before it could ever become an issue. He appears to be an excellent i dotter and t crosser, as well as having his own code of ethical standards, higher than what the bar demands.

Unfortunately for JB, he didn't check with MN's former clients prior to making his comments at the hearing today. IMO, JB came off as childish and tattling to get even. Even if he had a legitimate point, his demeanor and tone made it seem that way to me.

The way BC came in to the hearing so late and seemingly for the single purpose of putting it on the record that his clients waived conflict, I would hazard a guess that MN called him and apprised him of the situation and BC hurried over.

Poor JB; he may have thought the calvary had arrived when he saw BC. How little did he know, it was the final indignity of that calamitous (for the defense imo) hearing.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

THs are discussing this on JVM right now.

 

[lin]

Yea IMO they throw that in so KC wouldn't be mad and say they arent on her side because they waived there conflict to MN defending TES:crazy:Just me though

I agree. Unless I missed another reference, that was thrown in at the end, almost as an afterthought. Seemed the purpose was clear, waive conflict, and while he was there ask for speed because this 'needs to end' out of compassion for the Anthony's and their daughter.

 

[lin]

I agree. I just watched it....I thought it was really weird....the guy likes the sound of his own voice and has incredible arrogance to speak to the judge the way he did! Ordinarily the State would speak on behalf of a victim's family member.

I really think this waiver could backfire on him big time, if the As decide to turn on him....unless it was fully and properly explained to the As and he has written, informed consent to waive it, I would think they would have a good basis for a complaint. I know that I would never waive my rights to confidentiality like that, and find it very odd that he has done it on behalf of his clients.

He waived the conflict; not their right to confidentiality. I can see how easy it would be to mix those two concepts up because they are somewhat related. It could have appeared to be a conflict of interest, representing TES after representing the A's. The A's apparently have no problem with MN representing TES. He is still bound by client confidentiality with regards to them.

 

[lin]

Here's what I don't get, why is Baez interjecting himself in this part of the case anyway? MN, BC, and the A's are not his clients, nor have they ever been, so he has no need to even bring it up as part of his client's case, who is KC and only KC.
And truly, focusing on that seems to be increasingly difficult for him.

My opinion, today was a tidy win for the prosecution and a badloss for the defense. I think JB realized this as in the footage after the trial he was ramming things into his bag and looked fer-oche.

And each trial and motion makes JB look less effective than the last.

I was also appalled, yes totally appalled, that he would come into court today and state to the judge that someone on the Prosecution side of the table was not familiar with the case, that may have been directed at MN as I recall, but would have to watch it again.

I'm off to the rant thread!

Exactly. IMO, JB did not have standing to raise a conflict of interest issue because MN pointedly never represented KC. The only ones who could raise that issue would be former clients, of which there were none in the courtroom, to my knowledge, until BC arrived representing the A's.

 

[lin]

That's why it's considered a conflict of interest....because MN is in
possession of confidential information by virtue of his representing the As.

If the As contest that they gave such a waiver, and the attorneys do not have it in writing, they may find themselves in some very hot water.

You don't have to show they are on opposite sides....I've cut and pasted the relevant bar rules below.

And how do you think this is holding up the trial? The SA already made it clear they don't know they'll be ready even late this year?

Where do you think MN got his info to question the sources of JB's funding in his motion if not from the information he became privy to during the course of representing the As? I doubt he drafted it based on rumour alone.

RULE 4-1.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent; or

(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as rule 4-1.6 would permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.

I also believe it must be "informed consent confirmed in writing".

You're correctly citing part of the rules but are not including the entire application. IF MN had ever represented KC, JB could move the court to prevent MN from representing TES, alleging a conflict of interest. Like I said earlier, I was involved in a case in Florida last year wherein this issue arose. I've done a lot of research on the matter and there are a plethora of cases regarding same. For every case which was appealed and an opinion written, there were many others that end at the trial level. It's not unheard of, especially in smaller communities, and it can be an issue for litigation, not just a matter for the bar. The thing is, however, someone involved in the case must have standing to complain. Today, no one did, which was why the court suggested JB's recourse could be a bar complaint, which in my experience, is a much less common event.

Think about it: If opposing counsel formerly represented you in the same case, would you want to file a bar complaint or would you want the attorney removed from the case?

 

[cyberborg]

Maybe Conway understands that Nejame is too good of a lawyer to make enemies with.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Pick your battles.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Exactly. IMO, JB did not have standing to raise a conflict of interest issue because MN pointedly never represented KC. The only ones who could raise that issue would be former clients, of which there were none in the courtroom, to my knowledge, until BC arrived representing the A's.

Without a complaint from the As, I don't think there is much JB can do about it. But his concern is understandable. At one time he worked very closely with MN and MN represented the parents who fully support their daughter and no doubt MN was privy to information related to this case, which may be detrimental to his client.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

He waived the conflict; not their right to confidentiality. I can see how easy it would be to mix those two concepts up because they are somewhat related. It could have appeared to be a conflict of interest, representing TES after representing the A's. The A's apparently have no problem with MN representing TES. He is still bound by client confidentiality with regards to them.

If, and I repeat if, he knew how KC's defence was being funded, by virtue of the fact he became privy to that information as a direct result of his representing the As, and he then uses that information to assist TES in their application (the paragraph re requiring JB to prove the funds were legitimate), in my respectful opinion, that would be both a conflict (had it not been waived) and a breach of their entitlement to confidentiality. Perhaps he had an independent basis to request JB prove the money was coming from legitimate funds, but so far I've only seen rumours, and I doubt he'd draft the paragraph on the basis of rumours.

Conflict and a breach of a client's confidentiality can occur through the same actions.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

You're correctly citing part of the rules but are not including the entire application. IF MN had ever represented KC, JB could move the court to prevent MN from representing TES, alleging a conflict of interest. Like I said earlier, I was involved in a case in Florida last year wherein this issue arose. I've done a lot of research on the matter and there are a plethora of cases regarding same. For every case which was appealed and an opinion written, there were many others that end at the trial level. It's not unheard of, especially in smaller communities, and it can be an issue for litigation, not just a matter for the bar. The thing is, however, someone involved in the case must have standing to complain. Today, no one did, which was why the court suggested JB's recourse could be a bar complaint, which in my experience, is a much less common event.

Think about it: If opposing counsel formerly represented you in the same case, would you want to file a bar complaint or would you want the attorney removed from the case?

The rules aren't from the application! I didn't quote anything from the application. They are cut and pasted from the Florida Bar Rules.

ITA agree with you re standing to complain. And thank you for sharing your knowledge on this issue.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

You're correctly citing part of the rules but are not including the entire application. IF MN had ever represented KC, JB could move the court to prevent MN from representing TES, alleging a conflict of interest. Like I said earlier, I was involved in a case in Florida last year wherein this issue arose. I've done a lot of research on the matter and there are a plethora of cases regarding same. For every case which was appealed and an opinion written, there were many others that end at the trial level. It's not unheard of, especially in smaller communities, and it can be an issue for litigation, not just a matter for the bar. The thing is, however, someone involved in the case must have standing to complain. Today, no one did, which was why the court suggested JB's recourse could be a bar complaint, which in my experience, is a much less common event.

Think about it: If opposing counsel formerly represented you in the same case, would you want to file a bar complaint or would you want the attorney removed from the case?

I'd want both. Them removed from the case, and disciplined by their governing body.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: " ... I've done a lot of research on the matter and there are a plethora of cases regarding same. For every case which was appealed and an opinion written, there were many others that end at the trial level. It's not unheard of, especially in smaller communities, and it can be an issue for litigation, not just a matter for the bar. The thing is, however, someone involved in the case must have standing to complain. Today, no one did, which was why the court suggested JB's recourse could be a bar complaint, which in my experience, is a much less common event.

Think about it: If opposing counsel formerly represented you in the same case, would you want to file a bar complaint or would you want the attorney removed from the case?

ITA re: a party must have standing to raise an issue/complain to the court in ANY legal proceeding. There are a whole host of cases discussing whether or not a party has standing to complain about that which they complain.

The million dollar question though is whether or not you think that Cindy or George Anthony would have any standing to have complained on any level during the hearing today?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

ITA re: a party must have standing to raise an issue/complain to the court in ANY legal proceeding. There are a whole host of cases discussing whether or not a party has standing to complain about that which they complain.

The million dollar question though is whether or not you think that Cindy or George Anthony would have any standing to have complained on any level during the hearing today?

I say maybe...lol. I think there'd be an argument for both sides.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

And I should say, I half expected Cindy in court today screaming at MN and trying to address the Judge again! I was quite surprised BC took the position he did and don't think KC will be at all happy about it.

 

[TxLady2]

Couldn't he have submitted his statement in writing to the judge, avoiding what seemed to be a disruption of the proceedings?
His little message about the family loving and supporting their daughter was improper as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, it was. I think he did that mainly for the media's benefit, or to make an impression on the judge that her family still supports her. Whatever, it wasn't necessary and was out of place in the courtroom.