Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[nums24]

WHOA!! JB emailed (LEAKED!) this Motion to Beth Karras the NIGHT before the hearing! I don't think that's kosher so to speak... and from his personal email account! Is this allowed?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

 

[nums24]

Can Cindy get sued for slander/defamation for what she said at the bottom of her email on page 2?:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

"Morgan can't help being a slug because he is a sick drunk. Mark has no excuse."

 

[ynotdivein]

WHOA!! JB emailed (LEAKED!) this Motion to Beth Karras the NIGHT before the hearing! I don't think that's kosher so to speak... and from his personal email account! Is this allowed?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

I do so very much wish that I could use that entire MNJ statement as my sig line.

 

[nums24]

I do so very much wish that I could use that entire MNJ statement as my sig line.

Me too!

 

[I Din Doot]

Re: The waiver of conflict agreement between CA/GA and MN.

The words "recant and "withdraw' are puzzling me. It seems recant would mean the agreement was never valid (retroactivly) and withdraw would mean not valid from this point forward. MN said they cannot recant the agreement but JB made a big deal of it in his new motion(Paragraph 13).

Is there any way for them to recant short of proving they signed it under duress?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti...809_ResponseToMotionToQuashTheCourtsOrder.pdf

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitB.pdf

 

[racegirl72]

Can Cindy get sued for slander/defamation for what she said at the bottom of her email on page 2?:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

"Morgan can't help being a slug because he is a sick drunk. Mark has no excuse."

Gosh, I must be out of the loop...I haven't seen this b4...thanks!!!

 

[beach]

Can Cindy get sued for slander/defamation for what she said at the bottom of her email on page 2?:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

"Morgan can't help being a slug because he is a sick drunk. Mark has no excuse."

No question, AZ. Just a suggestion - here have a :martini: on me before you open up JB's latest response & exhibits to MN's bad faith motion.
Then get ready for a looooong hot shower.

 

[nums24]

No question, AZ. Just a suggestion - here have a :martini: on me before you open up JB's latest response & exhibits to MN's bad faith motion.
Then get ready for a looooong hot shower.

So True!:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :applause: :thumb: :Crown:

 

[AZlawyer]

If I stumble across a dead body, am I legally bound to report it to LE?

Is it illegal not to report finding a dead body?

Would there be a penalty for not reporting the body? What it it were a body in a missing person/criminal investigation?

TIA

This would be a question of state law. But I think in most states you are legally bound to report a dead body for health reasons, if nothing else.

WHOA!! JB emailed (LEAKED!) this Motion to Beth Karras the NIGHT before the hearing! I don't think that's kosher so to speak... and from his personal email account! Is this allowed?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

Yes, it is allowed.

Can Cindy get sued for slander/defamation for what she said at the bottom of her email on page 2?:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

"Morgan can't help being a slug because he is a sick drunk. Mark has no excuse."

I saw that and I so so so so hope that Morgan saw it too. Looks like defamation to me! :woohoo:

Re: The waiver of conflict agreement between CA/GA and MN.

The words "recant and "withdraw' are puzzling me. It seems recant would mean the agreement was never valid (retroactivly) and withdraw would mean not valid from this point forward. MN said they cannot recant the agreement but JB made a big deal of it in his new motion(Paragraph 13).

Is there any way for them to recant short of proving they signed it under duress?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti...809_ResponseToMotionToQuashTheCourtsOrder.pdf

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitB.pdf

I don't see how a conflict waiver can be "recanted," "withdrawn," etc. Once the waiver is made, you have obligations to your new client that should not be able to be affected by your old client's whims.

 

[beach]

AZ, you are cordially invited to the TES thread to share some of your much valued and appreciated knowledge.

In particular, in re. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5504356&postcount=705"]this post[/ame]. You may want to back read a page or so to see why this is being discussed.

 

[rhornsby]

This would be a question of state law. But I think in most states you are legally bound to report a dead body for health reasons, if nothing else.



Yes, it is allowed.



I saw that and I so so so so hope that Morgan saw it too. Looks like defamation to me! :woohoo:



I don't see how a conflict waiver can be "recanted," "withdrawn," etc. Once the waiver is made, you have obligations to your new client that should not be able to be affected by your old client's whims.

In brief, I disagree with many points. But no, Cindy Anthony's personal email to somebody about Mr. Morgan would not justify a defamation suit against Cindy Anthony.

As for the waiver, my opinion is that Mr. Nejame was in the wrong. To obtain a waiver of conflict is one thing, but if you misrepresent the terms of the waiver - there are problems. More importantly, I highly doubt that any waiver could legitimately allow a lawyer to divulge confidential communications into a book.

In sum, Mr. Nejames reliance on this waiver - and how it was obtained - are no different that many of the things I have faulted Mr. Baez for in his handling of Casey Anthony's confidential dealings.

 

[beach]

Richard, if you're still around, please share your opinion on the post I linked above.

 

[rhornsby]

Richard, if you're still around, please share your opinion on the post I linked above.

faefrost missed the point. The waiver issue is not being argued or asserted by the filing of the most recent motion (if it was, the motion would need to be filed by Conway), rather the motion is an attempt to show that Mr. Nejame's motives and objections are insincere - thus asserting that Judge Perry not give his claims much credibility.

To an extent, I agree with the defense on this issue - and I have posted such long ago.

 

[beach]

faefrost missed the point. The waiver issue is not being argued or asserted by the filing of the most recent motion (if it was, the motion would need to be filed by Conway), rather the motion is an attempt to show that Mr. Nejame's motives and objections are insincere - thus asserting that Judge Perry not give his claims much credibility.

To an extent, I agree with the defense on this issue - and I have posted such long ago.

I believe faefrost was talking about a possible waiver of attorney-client privilege since CA makes accusations against her former attorney, Mark Nejame. You might need to back read to get the whole gist of where she got that.

 

[RR0004]

faefrost missed the point. The waiver issue is not being argued or asserted by the filing of the most recent motion (if it was, the motion would need to be filed by Conway), rather the motion is an attempt to show that Mr. Nejame's motives and objections are insincere - thus asserting that Judge Perry not give his claims much credibility.

To an extent, I agree with the defense on this issue - and I have posted such long ago.

How would it be that his motives and objections were insincere, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[I Din Doot]

Re: The waiver of conflict agreement between CA/GA and MN.

The words "recant and "withdraw' are puzzling me. It seems recant would mean the agreement was never valid (retroactivly) and withdraw would mean not valid from this point forward. MN said they cannot recant the agreement but JB made a big deal of it in his new motion(Paragraph 13).

Is there any way for them to recant short of proving they signed it under duress?

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti...809_ResponseToMotionToQuashTheCourtsOrder.pdf

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitB.pdf

Rude for me to quote myself BUT to me recant means : I bought the horse,used it for 6 months, now I want my money back
.
Withdraw (to me) means yes I got the stupid horse, fed it, etc BUT it did not go 200 MPH like you said it would. If I can get a partial refund, you can keep it.:waitasec:

You signed the paper. I represented you. (or someone without a conflict, in good Faith)

I'm not a lawyer but I think I can make a good case out of this period that defines our obligation. If you decide you want out, perhaps it will be mutual BUT for the last 6 months I worked my -- putooty off for you and there will be no "RECANT".

Wanna withdraw? OK, from this day forward you are on your own.

If you can prove you signed that paper under duress (gun to your head) perhaps you have a case. Get a real LAWYER!!! NOT ME.

Am I just stuck on this or does it make sense?

 

[Numbers]

Rude for me to quote myself BUT to me recant means : I bought the horse,used it for 6 months, now I want my money back
.
Withdraw (to me) means yes I got the stupid horse, fed it, etc BUT it did not go 200 MPH like you said it would. If I can get a partial refund, you can keep it.:waitasec:

You signed the paper. I represented you. (or someone without a conflict, in good Faith)

I'm not a lawyer but I think I can make a good case out of this period that defines our obligation. If you decide you want out, perhaps it will be mutual BUT for the last 6 months I worked my -- putooty off for you and there will be no "RECANT".

Wanna withdraw? OK, from this day forward you are on your own.

If you can prove you signed that paper under duress (gun to your head) perhaps you have a case. Get a real LAWYER!!! NOT ME.

Am I just stuck on this or does it make sense?

recant v., say that one no longer holds an opinion or belief, esp. one considered heretical I no longer believe that horse can do 200 mph.

withdraw v., say that [a statement one has made] is untrue or unjustified; take back or away [something bestowed, proposed, or used] I lied when I said the horse can do 200 mph.

rescind v., revoke, cancel, or repeal [a law, order, or agreement] I no longer agree that the horse can do 200 mph.

In this case, the word rescind should have been selected.

 

[faefrost]

faefrost missed the point. The waiver issue is not being argued or asserted by the filing of the most recent motion (if it was, the motion would need to be filed by Conway), rather the motion is an attempt to show that Mr. Nejame's motives and objections are insincere - thus asserting that Judge Perry not give his claims much credibility.

To an extent, I agree with the defense on this issue - and I have posted such long ago.

Whoops I think we have 2 crossing topics. I wasn't talking about the waiver of conflict of interest.

My question is, MN has now been accused of lying and is being forced to defend himself personally in open court regarding his motives, his integrity and such. At least part of the direct accusation comes from his prior client CA through direct communications with the defense lawyers. (JB included a direct e-mail to him from CA in his court filing).

Now my question is, isn't one of the few times that the sanctity of attorney client privilege gets broken or dissolved, when you as the attorney are forced to defend yourself in court from this sort of accusation by your client? Particularly when accused of lying or acting without integrity?

And once the privilege is dissolved, it's all dissolved. MN could then talk about or write about ANYTHING he witnessed while working for the A's?

I'm not looking to defend MN or speculate on the truth of the claims on any side. Just wondering if that very act of dragging CA's accusations against her lawyer into this and forcing him to answer them before the court, is enough to undo that privilege?

On a side note, how does the court and public now deal with issues of privilege with BC? Can he be called as a witness regarding this specific matter? The defense filing is outlining events that took place regarding him, and for which he is the direct witness? yet the event referenced was him generating work product and research for his client, who is not the defendant?

Am I wrong in thinking this is a mess any way you look at it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Whoops I think we have 2 crossing topics. I wasn't talking about the waiver of conflict of interest.

My question is, MN has now been accused of lying and is being forced to defend himself personally in open court regarding his motives, his integrity and such. At least part of the direct accusation comes from his prior client CA through direct communications with the defense lawyers. (JB included a direct e-mail to him from CA in his court filing).

Now my question is, isn't one of the few times that the sanctity of attorney client privilege gets broken or dissolved, when you as the attorney are forced to defend yourself in court from this sort of accusation by your client? Particularly when accused of lying or acting without integrity?

And once the privilege is dissolved, it's all dissolved. MN could then talk about or write about ANYTHING he witnessed while working for the A's?

I'm not looking to defend MN or speculate on the truth of the claims on any side. Just wondering if that very act of dragging CA's accusations against her lawyer into this and forcing him to answer them before the court, is enough to undo that privilege?

On a side note, how does the court and public now deal with issues of privilege with BC? Can he be called as a witness regarding this specific matter? The defense filing is outlining events that took place regarding him, and for which he is the direct witness? yet the event referenced was him generating work product and research for his client, who is not the defendant?

Am I wrong in thinking this is a mess any way you look at it?

At least in AZ, a lawyer can't disclose privileged communications to "defend himself" unless he is actually being sued or criminally charged with something and those communications are relevant to the defense. MN is not in that position. Also (at least in AZ, again), it would not be true that the privilege would be destroyed as to all communications at that point--just relevant ones.

I'm not sure what you're asking about privilege issues with BC. There is no privilege involved in BC saying, for example, "I asked MN if I could look at the documents and he agreed, so I went and looked at them."

 

[faefrost]

At least in AZ, a lawyer can't disclose privileged communications to "defend himself" unless he is actually being sued or criminally charged with something and those communications are relevant to the defense. MN is not in that position. Also (at least in AZ, again), it would not be true that the privilege would be destroyed as to all communications at that point--just relevant ones.

I'm not sure what you're asking about privilege issues with BC. There is no privilege involved in BC saying, for example, "I asked MN if I could look at the documents and he agreed, so I went and looked at them."

Thanks, that answered my questions perfectly. It's defending charges of criminality or civil liability, and not simply defamation. (if I am reading you right?). He has to have more at risk then simply his good name.

re: BC I was wondering if the simple fact that the questions revolve around activities that occurred while he was doing specific work for his clients caused an issue? I mean yeah he can say "I was here and they let me look at the files" with no problem. But does he bump into an issue if they ask "well specifically which files did you look at?", "which ones did you mark for followup", "why"? etc. Would those types of questions be getting into the work product for his clients? Is there a line in there somewhere that he can't cross unless given leave by his clients?