Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[nums24]

Do you think this is possible?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5529693&postcount=202"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Tim Miller Interview[/ame]

 

[RR0004]

I think a mistrial is a stupid primary goal also. But as a backup plan, I suppose there is a greater chance of getting a plea deal offer after a mistrial.

I agree that, from what we heard, it appears that KC, at least, thinks a mistrial means she walks. Who knows whether JB understands it. If he understood it, you would think he could have conveyed the concept to a smart girl like KC during one of their 5-hour meetings.

I'm thinking that she could be thinking if there was a mistrial the issue of bail may come up again. That's funny...Casey thinking she could get out. Ok...now that I'm thinking about it...maybe scary is a better word. Would a judge be more lenient the 2nd time around?

 

[AZlawyer]

Do you think this is possible?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Tim Miller Interview

No, sorry!

I'm thinking that she could be thinking if there was a mistrial the issue of bail may come up again. That's funny...Casey thinking she could get out. Ok...now that I'm thinking about it...maybe scary is a better word. Would a judge be more lenient the 2nd time around?

I don't see why a judge would be more lenient just because there was a mistrial.

 

[faefrost]

A question regarding yesterdays in chambers meeting for the lawerly types?

How binding is what was agreed to in that meeting? While I realize that the sides are bound by what the judges order will be, does the judge have any leeway to change his order to reflect changes in circumstance between when he held the meeting and when the order was put to paper and signed?

For example when he held that meeting it was just to discuss the actual motions filed. BC had not yet made his public statement of "With regret, I am forced to resign as George and Cindy Anthony's attorney. The defense motion filed on Aug. 9, 2010, contains allegations that are not, in fact, true. As an officer of the court, I cannot stand idly by knowing allegations involving me have been misstated." Can this now public statement have any impact on what was decided behind closed doors? (Or can the defenses rush to a press conference?)

 

[LambChop]

A question regarding yesterdays in chambers meeting for the lawerly types?

How binding is what was agreed to in that meeting? While I realize that the sides are bound by what the judges order will be, does the judge have any leeway to change his order to reflect changes in circumstance between when he held the meeting and when the order was put to paper and signed?

For example when he held that meeting it was just to discuss the actual motions filed. BC had not yet made his public statement of "With regret, I am forced to resign as George and Cindy Anthony's attorney. The defense motion filed on Aug. 9, 2010, contains allegations that are not, in fact, true. As an officer of the court, I cannot stand idly by knowing allegations involving me have been misstated." Can this now public statement have any impact on what was decided behind closed doors? (Or can the defenses rush to a press conference?)

And, could this be why we have not seen the order from the judge who JB would be filing it later that day???

 

[beach]

A question regarding yesterdays in chambers meeting for the lawerly types?

How binding is what was agreed to in that meeting? While I realize that the sides are bound by what the judges order will be, does the judge have any leeway to change his order to reflect changes in circumstance between when he held the meeting and when the order was put to paper and signed?

For example when he held that meeting it was just to discuss the actual motions filed. BC had not yet made his public statement of "With regret, I am forced to resign as George and Cindy Anthony's attorney. The defense motion filed on Aug. 9, 2010, contains allegations that are not, in fact, true. As an officer of the court, I cannot stand idly by knowing allegations involving me have been misstated." Can this now public statement have any impact on what was decided behind closed doors? (Or can the defenses rush to a press conference?)

BBM

I thought Conway appeared in the first hour of the Today show and made that statement. :waitasec: If so, that would have been before the in camera hearing. I have a strong suspicion that Conway contacted Nejame and expressed his dismay. Or maybe even, vice versa - Nejame contacted Conway to get confirmation of the defense allegations. Either way, I think Judge Perry had access to that knowledge. However, I doubt Conway's statement or his resignation was considered by Judge Perry. jmho

 

[Kentjbkent]

BBM

I thought Conway appeared in the first hour of the Today show and made that statement. :waitasec: If so, that would have been before the in camera hearing. I have a strong suspicion that Conway contacted Nejame and expressed his dismay. Or maybe even, vice versa - Nejame contacted Conway to get confirmation of the defense allegations. Either way, I think Judge Perry had access to that knowledge. However, I doubt Conway's statement or his resignation was considered by Judge Perry. jmho

I suspect that the "official resignation" took place at latest last Thursday, sometime after Baez filed his response. As I understand it, BC flew to NY with the Anthonys but did not appear on the Today Show (not surprising if he was officially no longer their legal representative). I think it is possible that the Today Show then offered him a spot on Monday mornings broadcast to announce his resignation, timed to coincide with the media release Mon morning.

I also suspect that after reading Baez response, Judge Perry said ENOUGH and ordered all attorneys to his office pronto at 8:30 am on Monday to settle this issue once and for all. I wouldn't be surprised if Perry was notified of BC resignation when setting meeting time.

I just don't think WE as a public were notified until Monday morning and I think it was a well executed plan to divert the attention of the media while all attorneys headed to the courthouse. BC releases his statement via fax to all local media and they chased that story, never realizing there was a bigger story going on in Perry's office.....

 

[pip]

This one is for RH. So, what's the chitchat around the water cooler in Orlando on Baez? I know you won't want to get into details as a colleague, but can you be vague? Laughing stock, or not? On a respect scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest regard.. where is Baez ranking these days in the Orlando lawyer scene?
Thanks! I just really would like to know how his handling of this case is viewed behind the scenes among professionals.

 

[pip]

My guess is that his local respect ranking went up by luck alone, boosted by envy of other attorneys who haven't caught "the big one" yet. He inadvertently caught this big fish of a case, and has himself surrounded by big players, who were certainly not attracted to the case by merit of Baez' credentials, haha...but only by way of the enormity of the case itself. It doesn't appear that he has learned anything along the path from his more seasoned colleagues, thus far. All he can do as to appear that he 'belongs' to the crowd he is running with has been to assume a cocky, Rico Suave personna to hide his inexperience. This case will make him or break him. This guy has alot to learn. Will we see him selling bikini's again after this is all over with? Or will he emerge smelling like a rose in the end?
Will win or lose affect his peer rankings, if only based upon notoriety of the case?

 

[AZlawyer]

A question regarding yesterdays in chambers meeting for the lawerly types?

How binding is what was agreed to in that meeting? While I realize that the sides are bound by what the judges order will be, does the judge have any leeway to change his order to reflect changes in circumstance between when he held the meeting and when the order was put to paper and signed?

For example when he held that meeting it was just to discuss the actual motions filed. BC had not yet made his public statement of "With regret, I am forced to resign as George and Cindy Anthony's attorney. The defense motion filed on Aug. 9, 2010, contains allegations that are not, in fact, true. As an officer of the court, I cannot stand idly by knowing allegations involving me have been misstated." Can this now public statement have any impact on what was decided behind closed doors? (Or can the defenses rush to a press conference?)

The agreement is completely binding, but yes, the judge can make changes.

I don't think anything BC said would have had any effect on the judge's ruling (whatever it was), especially since the ruling was as a result of an agreement between the parties. I would also bet a lot of money that MN was aware of BC's resignation prior to the Today show interview and informed the judge of it.

 

[nums24]

I am wondering if this ethics opinion would apply to criminal law as well. Thank you for your consideration

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBET...7c01f8b06bc95e6685256b2f006ca735?OpenDocument

 

[nums24]

Is this similar or applicable to JB's disclosure of the CA/MN/BC email that was leaked to B. Karas and then used as an exhibit in the response to response Motion to Quash?

Ethics Opinion:
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBET...0dce1fb368b9d50e85256b2f006ca7ce?OpenDocument

Response to Motion:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ication for Subpoena Duces Tecum 8-9-2010.pdf

Thank you!!

 

[AZlawyer]

I am wondering if this ethics opinion would apply to criminal law as well. Thank you for your consideration

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBET...7c01f8b06bc95e6685256b2f006ca735?OpenDocument

It should, yes. The basic theme of that opinion is that, since you are REQUIRED to report ethical violations by other attorneys, it is unethical to THREATEN to report someone--you have to just do it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Is this similar or applicable to JB's disclosure of the CA/MN/BC email that was leaked to B. Karas and then used as an exhibit in the response to response Motion to Quash?

Ethics Opinion:
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBET...0dce1fb368b9d50e85256b2f006ca7ce?OpenDocument

Response to Motion:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ication for Subpoena Duces Tecum 8-9-2010.pdf

Thank you!!

No, that ethics opinion is about releasing confidential documents that are inadvertently disclosed to the attorney. The CA/MN emails were purposely (not inadvertently) sent to JB, probably specifically for the purpose of giving them to the media and using them as an exhibit.

 

[nums24]

No, that ethics opinion is about releasing confidential documents that are inadvertently disclosed to the attorney. The CA/MN emails were purposely (not inadvertently) sent to JB, probably specifically for the purpose of giving them to the media and using them as an exhibit.

Thank you. But what if JB inadvertently forwarded to Beth K., he had no business releasing MN/BC legal communications without MN's consent. MN did the right thing not responding directly to Cindy because she was represented. Am I making any sense?

 

[nums24]

It should, yes. The basic theme of that opinion is that, since you are REQUIRED to report ethical violations by other attorneys, it is unethical to THREATEN to report someone--you have to just do it.

So is BC required to file a complaint based on his allegations?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you. But what if JB inadvertently forwarded to Beth K., he had no business releasing MN/BC legal communications without MN's consent. MN did the right thing not responding directly to Cindy because she was represented. Am I making any sense?

These were not attorney-client privileged communications, as there was no attorney-client relationship between MN and CA at the time, and because the communications were not for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.

And if they WERE privileged communications, CA would have waived the privilege by sending them to JB (a third party). The privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, so even if they were privileged communications, MN had nothing to say about whether they were released or not.

So is BC required to file a complaint based on his allegations?

Only if he's alleging that JB violated an ethical rule. I'm not sure that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that JB's motion contained falsehoods, but where did those falsehoods come from? IMO, they came from Cindy, not from JB. Now, JB was unprofessional in not calling BC to confirm the story before putting it in his motion, but he probably didn't violate any actual ethical rule.

 

[ThinkTank]

These were not attorney-client privileged communications, as there was no attorney-client relationship between MN and CA at the time, and because the communications were not for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.

And if they WERE privileged communications, CA would have waived the privilege by sending them to JB (a third party). The privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, so even if they were privileged communications, MN had nothing to say about whether they were released or not.



Only if he's alleging that JB violated an ethical rule. I'm not sure that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that JB's motion contained falsehoods, but where did those falsehoods come from? IMO, they came from Cindy, not from JB. Now, JB was unprofessional in not calling BC to confirm the story before putting it in his motion, but he probably didn't violate any actual ethical rule.

Does the fact that JB was in court the same time BC announced to Judge S. that his clients wanted him to waive conflict, at the Jan 30, 2010 Hearing, factor into JB knowing that the statements he filed in his Motion were UNTRUE? JB knew that MN did not coerce the Anthonys into signing the waiver, in exchange for BC being allowed to view the TES records. Even if Cindy conveyed this untruth to JB, the attorney JB had an ethical obligation to not put untrue statements in his filing, did he not?

 

[AZlawyer]

Does the fact that JB was in court the same time BC announced to Judge S. that his clients wanted him to waive conflict, at the Jan 30, 2010 Hearing, factor into JB knowing that the statements he filed in his Motion were UNTRUE? JB knew that MN did not coerce the Anthonys into signing the waiver, in exchange for BC being allowed to view the TES records. Even if Cindy conveyed this untruth to JB, the attorney JB had an ethical obligation to not put untrue statements in his filing, did he not?

BC's statement that his clients wanted him to waive the conflict was not inconsistent with JB's statement that they waived the conflict only in exchange for a look at the TES records.

 

[ThinkTank]

BC's statement that his clients wanted him to waive the conflict was not inconsistent with JB's statement that they waived the conflict only in exchange for a look at the TES records.

Will the Anthonys be able to revoke their waiver of conflict, due to only signing it under duress aka in exchange for their attorney being able to review the TES documents?

If so, would that lead to MN being removed as TES counsel due to a conflict of interest that would then be current (as in not waived)?