Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[beach]

More importantly, what the attorneys represent about the breadth of the waiver is not the issue, it is what the client represents that is the issue. And not one of your videos has CA or GA saying that they waive confidentiality or to what extent. If you recall, Judge Strickland fully questioned Casey Anthony on her waiver of financial conflict - he did not let Mr. Baez make the representations.

--respectfully snipped for emphasis and space

You are correct. I agree with you that, legally speaking, Conway should have encouraged his clients to not agree to the waiver of conflict. In that video clip, Conway asserts 3 times that it was his client's wishes to waive conflict. He never once asserts that he advised them against it. In retrospect, I agree that Judge Strickland should have gotten it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

In my opinion, Cindy Anthony is an attorney's worst nightmare in regards to client control. I would like to ask any and all attorneys to express their personal views on when, if ever, they would choose to withdraw when they were faced with a client they could not control. What would be the criteria that would be the 'last straw'?

I ask this because, though I have dealt with several 'difficult' clients, I had only one particular experience when I felt we should have withdrawn. It was a divorce/custody dispute where we represented the soon to be ex-wife. Her father (the grandfather of the child) had 2 prior child molestation convictions and had served time in prison. (fyi - there was a guardian ad litem representing the child) The judge had ordered that the child was not to be in the presence of the convicted felon grandfather at any time and under ANY circumstances. He was adamant in his Order. However, our client twice disregarded the judge's order and took 2 separate two-week family vacations putting the child at risk. At first, she lied to us. We confronted her with the evidence (the father had a PI) and eventually told us she "didn't give a damn what the judge said." My boss never withdrew. I disagreed with his choice.

 

[rhornsby]

BBM - Mr. Hornsby, Nejame started representing TES in January 2009, the Anthony's email is dated 02/10/2010. Does the timing change your opinion?


Anthony Email: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24581637/detail.html

Nejame Article: http://www.nejamelaw.com/mark-nejame-in-the-news/equusearch-fighting-baez-request.htm

No, it highlights the problem.

Mr. Nejame acquires a waiver, the extent of which we would not know unless it is in writing - and under Florida Bar rules it should be - and then once his motivations comes to light, the Anthony's object and try to enforce their rights.

Unless it is specifically in writing, the breadth of the waiver is not to be determined by the lawyer, but by the person whom the right to grant a waiver belongs to - the client.

Obviously in this case, the Anthony's believe Mr. Nejame has violated the terms of the waiver or misconstrued their intentions.

 

[RR0004]

The statement I was presented was "I don't see how it would be fair for them [Texas Equsearch] to be victimized by ripping the counsel of their choice out from under them at this late date."

And I would suggest that this very conflict/waiver disagreement is exactly why it would be fair to deprive them of counsel. Any business person who has worked with lawyers before would have seen it coming a mile away - so Tim Miller may be a nice guy, but he doesn't get to use ignorance as a defense in my book.

More importantly, what the attorneys represent about the breadth of the waiver is not the issue, it is what the client represents that is the issue. And not one of your videos has CA or GA saying that they waive confidentiality or to what extent. If you recall, Judge Strickland fully questioned Casey Anthony on her waiver of financial conflict - he did not let Mr. Baez make the representations.

And to further the point, it is ironic that in the same time-frame Mr. Nejame is on TV saying there is no conflict, his former clients are emailing him that they feel their is a conflict and withdraw their consent to his involvement with TexasEqusearch.

The best example would be to imagine a lawyer representing a husband in a divorce. Then suddenly - in the middle of the divorce - the lawyer wants to represent the wife's brother in a "business deal." While there may or may not be an actual conflict, there is clearly a perceived conflict - which is exactly what a lawyer is ethically required to avoid.

Does that mean then that the As will be charged with something? Because I can see your point if MN represented Casey...loose connection to grandparents IMHO. MN knows enough not to break confidentiality. But, heck...what do I know.

 

[RR0004]

No, it highlights the problem.

Mr. Nejame acquires a waiver, the extent of which we would not know unless it is in writing - and under Florida Bar rules it should be - and then once his motivations comes to light, the Anthony's object and try to enforce their rights.

Unless it is specifically in writing, the breadth of the waiver is not to be determined by the lawyer, but by the person whom the right to grant a waiver belongs to - the client.

Obviously in this case, the Anthony's believe Mr. Nejame has violated the terms of the waiver or misconstrued their intentions.

So Cindy writes an email to Jose Baez? Sorry...if she (they) thought their intentions were misconstrued she should have notified her own attorney and let him pursue it. Doesn't that make more sense?

 

[rhornsby]

Does that mean then that the As will be charged with something? Because I can see your point if MN represented Casey...loose connection to grandparents IMHO. MN knows enough not to break confidentiality. But, heck...what do I know.

Rule violations are punished by an administrative body - i.e. The Florida Bar - but only when they are brought to the attention of the rule making body.

Crimes are punished by the judicial system.

So just because something violates a rule, does not mean they can be charged with a crime.

 

[ohiogirl]

To all Lawyers: What do you think of this latest development? Why is BC resigning now? If he feels he will be called as a witness, why not wait until that happens? Does he really think JB is going to call him in the trial to testify what the TES documents showed? Or, is he doing this to draw the court's attention to an unethical attorney? What do you think?

 

[AZlawyer]

To all Lawyers: What do you think of this latest development? Why is BC resigning now? If he feels he will be called as a witness, why not wait until that happens? Does he really think JB is going to call him in the trial to testify what the TES documents showed? Or, is he doing this to draw the court's attention to an unethical attorney? What do you think?

My theory is that BC wanted to notify the court that the Anthonys' conflict waiver WAS voluntary and not in exchange for the doc review, but the As didn't want him to file anything contrary to the defense filing.

The only thing I can think of that doesn't fit with this theory is BC's statement that the As have done nothing wrong that caused him to resign. :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

My theory is that BC wanted to notify the court that the Anthonys' conflict waiver WAS voluntary and not in exchange for the doc review, but the As didn't want him to file anything contrary to the defense filing.

The only thing I can think of that doesn't fit with this theory is BC's statement that the As have done nothing wrong that caused him to resign. :waitasec:

Could it just be a case of professional ethics on BC's part???

 

[LambChop]

How does the judge fair in all of this? Does this make him look bad because he did not stop this nonsence when the first motion was filed???? Or did he want it to play out either way to make his decision easier????

 

[AZlawyer]

How does the judge fair in all of this? Does this make him look bad because he did not stop this nonsence when the first motion was filed???? Or did he want it to play out either way to make his decision easier????

I'm not sure what you mean by the "first motion" or which nonsense you're referring to--the conflict waiver, the TES docs, ???

In any event, I think HHJP has not done anything thus far to make himself look bad, and certainly it is OK for him to wait for motions to be fully briefed before taking any action.

 

[LambChop]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "first motion" or which nonsense you're referring to--the conflict waiver, the TES docs, ???

In any event, I think HHJP has not done anything thus far to make himself look bad, and certainly it is OK for him to wait for motions to be fully briefed before taking any action.

Sorry, I was talking about the "Bad Faith" motion and the response by JB. They seemed to be going back and forth. Could the judge have called a private meeting at that time to try and resolve the issue? The judge seems to want things to move along but we do not see an action from defense's camp to try another stab at looking at those documents..... What is stopping them?

 

[Kentjbkent]

During the Baez/Cheney press conference this afternoon, Baez made reference to a "meeting" between all attorneys and Judge Perry and stated there will be a new scheduled "viewing of documents....probably in this room". Baez stated Judge Perry "would be signing the new order....maybe even today"....

When pressed by the reporter for details, baez stated the "meeting details were under seal". So my question is, will this new order also be under seal?

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry, I was talking about the "Bad Faith" motion and the response by JB. They seemed to be going back and forth. Could the judge have called a private meeting at that time to try and resolve the issue? The judge seems to want things to move along but we do not see an action from defense's camp to try another stab at looking at those documents..... What is stopping them?

I suppose the judge could always call everyone in, but normal practice would be to wait until the motion is fully briefed, which just occurred. That way, everyone has had a chance to put their positions in writing prior to the court appearance.

During the Baez/Cheney press conference this afternoon, Baez made reference to a "meeting" between all attorneys and Judge Perry and stated there will be a new scheduled "viewing of documents....probably in this room". Baez stated Judge Perry "would be signing the new order....maybe even today"....

When pressed by the reporter for details, baez stated the "meeting details were under seal". So my question is, will this new order also be under seal?

Interesting. I have no idea if the order will be under seal; JB's comment suggests that it will, but I can't think of any reason to seal it.

 

[faefrost]

During the Baez/Cheney press conference this afternoon, Baez made reference to a "meeting" between all attorneys and Judge Perry and stated there will be a new scheduled "viewing of documents....probably in this room". Baez stated Judge Perry "would be signing the new order....maybe even today"....

When pressed by the reporter for details, baez stated the "meeting details were under seal". So my question is, will this new order also be under seal?

If it is "under seal" Ummm? then how is HHJP going to react to the defense holding a press conference about it? (This isn't the old west anymore right? I mean a judge can't actually order that the defendant, their lawyer and all their horses be hung at sunup anymore, can he?)

 

[Kentjbkent]

If it is "under seal" Ummm? then how is HHJP going to react to the defense holding a press conference about it? (This isn't the old west anymore right? I mean a judge can't actually order that the defendant, their lawyer and all their horses be hung at sunup anymore, can he?)

That was one of my first thoughts after I closed the browser on Baez (can only take so much, you know?)...

First he states the "morning meeting details" were sealed by the judge (so cannot comment), but then he states.....

QUOTE RESPECT MOMTECTIVE (press conference thread)

There was something either Baez or Chaney said about "there will be no more issues with the defense being treated unfairly." Did anyone else catch that?

I won't be surprised to see Judge Perry NOT "sitting on a rainbow" after he gets wind of this press conference, which leads to my next question....

Can Judge Perry decide ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and initiate and order a GAG ORDER from this point forward....

Or does one side or the other have to request it in a motion presented to the court first? (I know the SA attempted it early on)

 

[beach]

Interesting. I have no idea if the order will be under seal; JB's comment suggests that it will, but I can't think of any reason to seal it.

fwiw, I did not get the impression that the Order will be sealed. I could be wrong, but that just wasn't the way I interpreted it. In fact, from what I can tell, it seems the conditions of the doc review are pretty much the same as his original order. Go look, take notes, tab what you want him to review and THEN he will will rule on which searchers can be investigated. jmho

I very clearly got the message that the in camera meeting that Judge Perry summoned himself WAS under seal. If they had any sense, they probably all should be happy about that. I imagine there were some stern, not so subtle...er, instructions. :angel:

 

[AZlawyer]

That was one of my first thoughts after I closed the browser on Baez (can only take so much, you know?)...

First he states the "morning meeting details" were sealed by the judge (so cannot comment), but then he states.....

QUOTE RESPECT MOMTECTIVE (press conference thread)

There was something either Baez or Chaney said about "there will be no more issues with the defense being treated unfairly." Did anyone else catch that?

I won't be surprised to see Judge Perry NOT "sitting on a rainbow" after he gets wind of this press conference, which leads to my next question....

Can Judge Perry decide ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and initiate and order a GAG ORDER from this point forward....

Or does one side or the other have to request it in a motion presented to the court first? (I know the SA attempted it early on)

HHJP could impose a gag order on his own, but at this point it would be like shutting the barn door after the horses have all run off....

 

[Steely Dan]

I have heard that JB may have told KC he could get her a mistrial. I've never seen that documented but I believe a mistrial would be a very bad thing for KC. The defense doesn't have to show the prosecution how they will present themselves at trial so the advantage goes to the defense. If there is a mistrial the prosecution now knows what the defense will be doing in the next trial and now the prosecution has a level playing field if not better. JMO

Would one of our legal eagles care to comment?


I wonder if JB knows that a mistrial doesn't mean she will walk free? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

I have heard that JB may have told KC he could get her a mistrial. I've never seen that documented but I believe a mistrial would be a very bad thing for KC. The defense doesn't have to show the prosecution how they will present themselves at trial so the advantage goes to the defense. If there is a mistrial the prosecution now knows what the defense will be doing in the next trial and now the prosecution has a level playing field if not better. JMO

Would one of our legal eagles care to comment?


I wonder if JB knows that a mistrial doesn't mean she will walk free? :waitasec:

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.

 

[beach]

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.

BBM

:floorlaugh:

You crack me up, AZ! :rotfl: