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

[VALee]

I think the A's have finally realized that they can love their daughter and hate what she has done.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Hmmm...interesting, I hadn't thought of that possibility. The fact of the matter is though that regardless who represents KC, whether it's JB, BC or joe blow, a defense attorney's #1 interest is their client, not the client's mother, father or brother. I think the A's better wake up to that fact and if there is anything that could be brought out and used against them - if they did lie for and/or aid KC in any way, they should have realized by doing so that it would/could put them in a percarious situation and I think that's the situation that they have found themselves in. From all that we know thus far in this case, KC is going down, she won't be walking away and I truly don't think that she cares who she takes down with her, even the very ones who may have committed a crime in order to protect and/or cover up for her! The A's may just wish that BC was representing KC but ultimately it wouldn't be any different because he would put KC's interests first as well. Rather then living with the anxiety and worry if KC is going to hang them out to dry, they should just run their a$$'s to the prosecution and admit to lying or aiding in anyway, tell them that I believed at that time that she was innocent, admit that I was wrong and a fool and testify for them.

I think it's an even bigger possibility now after hearing how he is trying to get the TES records himself. I wonder if the As got angry at him for waiving conflict yesterday and this is how he's trying to make it up to them, or whether he was planning to do it before that. I really think this guy wants to take KC's case over and wonder if he's been wanting that for awhile.

 

[lin]

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.

As I mentioned, I do have some experience with this specific issue; conflict of interest under Florida law. I'll go even further and state that after winning it at the trial level, opposing counsel appealed and I won that too, without getting someone else to do the appeal. It is the same appellate circuit that would cover Orlando. I'd cite the case, but there was no published opinion.

Since you're going into hypotheticals, if the A's discussed anything with MN regarding funding of JB, and I were hypothetically defending him against a complaint filed by the A's, (not JB who has absolutely no standing whatsoever), not that MN would need me, I'd point out:

1. the numerous occasions during which the A's repeated they had no idea how the defense was funded;

2. the fact that MN repeatedly stated he had nothing to do with the defense, would not comment on it;

3. the numerous occasions when MN reiterated he did not and would not represent KC.

4. the numerous occasions on which it was reiterated the role of MN in the matters at hand; handling the media and rehabilitating the A's image.

5. the fact that there is no pending litigation between his former client and his current client and therefore, absolutely no possibility of a conflict of interest.

6. if raised in the petition, as you did here, despite the above, that somehow MN may have overheard something or been told something that would cause him to question the source of JB's funding, I would nail the coffin -- er, I mean "case" yeah, case, shut by showing the numerous media reports questioning the source of JB's funding to show that even if such a confidence was given, despite all the proof to the contrary, that his including this question in his pleadings on behalf of TES could never be shown to be fruit of a poisoned tree, given that this fruit is lying around in abundance to all and sundry.

7. and finally, you call it rumor; I call it an ethical attorney avoiding the appearance of any impropriety associated with possibly illegitimate funding.

PS -- I was on the other side in the case I mentioned and successfully had the other attorney removed from the case. I know the height of that bar, from personal experience.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

As I mentioned, I do have some experience with this specific issue; conflict of interest under Florida law. I'll go even further and state that after winning it at the trial level, opposing counsel appealed and I won that too, without getting someone else to do the appeal. It is the same appellate circuit that would cover Orlando. I'd cite the case, but there was no published opinion.

Since you're going into hypotheticals, if the A's discussed anything with MN regarding funding of JB, and I were hypothetically defending him against a complaint filed by the A's, (not JB who has absolutely no standing whatsoever), not that MN would need me, I'd point out:

1. the numerous occasions during which the A's repeated they had no idea how the defense was funded;

2. the fact that MN repeatedly stated he had nothing to do with the defense, would not comment on it;

3. the numerous occasions when MN reiterated he did not and would not represent KC.

4. the numerous occasions on which it was reiterated the role of MN in the matters at hand; handling the media and rehabilitating the A's image.

5. the fact that there is no pending litigation between his former client and his current client and therefore, absolutely no possibility of a conflict of interest.

6. if raised in the petition, as you did here, despite the above, that somehow MN may have overheard something or been told something that would cause him to question the source of JB's funding, I would nail the coffin -- er, I mean "case" yeah, case, shut by showing the numerous media reports questioning the source of JB's funding to show that even if such a confidence was given, despite all the proof to the contrary, that his including this question in his pleadings on behalf of TES could never be shown to be fruit of a poisoned tree, given that this fruit is lying around in abundance to all and sundry.

7. and finally, you call it rumor; I call it an ethical attorney avoiding the appearance of any impropriety associated with possibly illegitimate funding.

PS -- I was on the other side in the case I mentioned and successfully had the other attorney removed from the case. I know the height of that bar, from personal experience.

If I was MN and facing a complaint from the As, I'd want you repping me.

I'm curious what you thought the basis was for his paragraph re legitimate money. Where I come from, not the USA, it would be very unusual to put that sort of thing into a motion.

 

[lin]

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.

Language difference -- I think you may use the word "application" when I would use words "petition" or "pleadings." The application of the rules and laws of Florida in my usage was intended to mean how those are applied and interpreted by the courts, not anything specific about any pleading.

 

[lin]

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?

For the reasons outlined in the foregoing post, absolutely none.

 

[lin]

I'm sure *someone* can come up with a hypothetical scenario that "might" give the Anthonys standing to complain in THIS criminal lawsuit, but the likelihood of such a hypothetical being the truth in THIS criminal lawsuit is next to 0.

Finally, we disagree! I give likelihood a rating of less than 0 and expect it much more likely fees and costs awarded to MN both from the A's and whomever filed that frivolous hypothetical cause on their behalf.

 

[lin]

I expected the same and I agree re: your assessment that Casey might not be too happy about it. Kinda similar to what we were discussing on the motion hearing thread earlier today re: BC standing *with* the SA, etc. BC's comments to Casey re: her parents supporting her were very, er, transparent. But heck, Casey's so full of herself, she might believe him (or come up with a new line of bs to rationalize it :doh: )

I feel better; we agree again. whew!

Seemed clear to me that BC was either called or was watching the hearing at another location and made a beeline to the court to put it on the record that conflict was waived. Unless I missed something, that 'love and support' didn't come out until he was done and the court was asking him questions.

 

[zoey]

For the reasons outlined in the foregoing post, absolutely none.

okay...so bc had no reason to be there and proclaim what he did?

 

[lin]

If I was MN and facing a complaint from the As, I'd want you repping me.

I'm curious what you thought the basis was for his paragraph re legitimate money. Where I come from, not the USA, it would be very unusual to put that sort of thing into a motion.

Awwww... thanks.

It's not that unusual and just said to me that MN doesn't like JB. MN made a fool of JB both in his objection and more so in court. He didn't have to; we all know he knows how to make his point without doing so; so he clearly wanted to.

As I mentioned above, the numerous media reports would give anyone here pause before associating with or accepting illegitimate funding. MN seems to be very ethical, from what I've seen and I thought this even when I wasn't happy with his mission.

<wild speculation alert> It is remotely possible that the A's also would like to know how the defense is being funded. They seem to have taken great offense to the selling of little Caylee.* Remember the former rep who sold pics for like $6k and how upset they were?

*I don't think they see what they're doing with the t-shirts and all as selling her.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I feel better; we agree again. whew!

Seemed clear to me that BC was either called or was watching the hearing at another location and made a beeline to the court to put it on the record that conflict was waived. Unless I missed something, that 'love and support' didn't come out until he was done and the court was asking him questions.

I don't recall BC being asked any questions. The Judge seemed a bit baffled by his carrying on IMO. Just grandstanding, IMO.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

What does everyone think about BC/the As requesting the records from TES? And why? Obviously BC knows he has no standing. I wonder if he's trying to convince the As that he'd be the better lawyer to rep Casey so he's trying to take over JB's job in the background??

Do you think he did this to appease the As after yesterday's hearing?

 

[zoey]

What does everyone think about BC/the As requesting the records from TES? And why? Obviously BC knows he has no standing. I wonder if he's trying to convince the As that he'd be the better lawyer to rep Casey so he's trying to take over JB's job in the background??

Do you think he did this to appease the As after yesterday's hearing?

why does bc have to be everywhere and anywhere and mingle with everything????

 

[lin]

okay...so bc had no reason to be there and proclaim what he did?

IMO, he was either called by MN, or saw it on his own and came solely to close the door on any possibility of any conflict of interest. IIRC, that was the only information he volunteered and the other comments came after questioning from the court.

IMO, the court saw it as a non-issue, stating as much. <speculation alert> The court was perhaps a bit surprised that BC took it seriously enough to hightail it to the hearing for just that reason. This may be why the court questioned him, expecting there had to be some other reason. MN and BC, however, did not finding impugning the integrity of MN in any way to be a non-issue and wanted the waiver on the record immediately.

 

[lin]

What does everyone think about BC/the As requesting the records from TES? And why? Obviously BC knows he has no standing. I wonder if he's trying to convince the As that he'd be the better lawyer to rep Casey so he's trying to take over JB's job in the background??

Do you think he did this to appease the As after yesterday's hearing?

I haven't read the information to which you're referring regarding BC trying to get info re: TES. I write to opine that at this late date, with so much damage already done, I question BC wanting to take over the defense. He's getting all the media attention he wants through representing A's, therefore, I don't see anything in it for him but a big ugly loss on a high profile case.

 

[lin]

I don't recall BC being asked any questions. The Judge seemed a bit baffled by his carrying on IMO. Just grandstanding, IMO.

I agree the court didn't seem to understand the purpose, which was why the court asked him something to the effect of, 'what (else) can I do for you?' I didn't mean to imply that BC was questioned beyond that.

 

[lin]

why does bc have to be everywhere and anywhere and mingle with everything????

Be glad; it used to be the A's personally.

 

[lin]

epiphany! Or maybe just more wild speculation. Maybe, just maybe, BC is trying to make a deal with the devil to get the remains released obo his clients and is attempting to proffer limited TES info in exchange.

As much as I personally dislike the A's and find their actions reprehensible, I have to admit they do have excellent taste in counsel.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I haven't read the information to which you're referring regarding BC trying to get info re: TES. I write to opine that at this late date, with so much damage already done, I question BC wanting to take over the defense. He's getting all the media attention he wants through representing A's, therefore, I don't see anything in it for him but a big ugly loss on a high profile case.

I don't get GVS where I am, but people who watched it last night said BC was showing a letter to Greta that he/the As had written TES that day asking for the records. I"m going to try to find the link to the video to see it.

I think BC loves the press more than any of the lawyers in the case, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if he wants to rep Casey. I thought it was more than a bit odd that he took DC on as a client with the mess over the video, particularly after he himself had already said to the press that DC was there to look for beer bottles etc. Why do these lawyers keep going on the record with inconsistent stories...it's like he thought we wouldn't notice when he changed from the Kio tip to it being a psychic. Either his clients lied to him, and he passed that lie on to the press, or ?????

Assuming the reports from Greta are true, why do you think he's getting involved in asking for these records?? I really think he's trying to show Casey that she should fire JB and use him instead.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

epiphany! Or maybe just more wild speculation. Maybe, just maybe, BC is trying to make a deal with the devil to get the remains released obo his clients and is attempting to proffer limited TES info in exchange.

As much as I personally dislike the A's and find their actions reprehensible, I have to admit they do have excellent taste in counsel.

You like BC? A few weeks ago he was blaming Hoover for the funeral not being able to go ahead. I think KC isn't releasing the remains as a favour to her family and to save herself. She knows LE wants to question the family after the funeral, and it's not in KC's interest to have her parents turn on her in an immunity deal. Ever since I heard LE's announcement that they wanted to question the As after the funeral, I thought this would happen.

Where I come from lawyers are not allowed to talk to the media about their cases while they are running. I wish the same rules applied in Fla. I would love to see BC muzzled!