Wesh just reported that TB is not Casey's lawyer and is not bound by Client privelege

[Blink34]

I have NEVER believed the "under the bridge story" and will NOT believe it until LE says it is true. If it were really the bondsman and they were not concerned that she was trying to run, they would have waited until he took her to the jail. LE didn't wait..........the stopped him and arrested her on the spot.

The story does not wash in my eyes.

True story, I swear, from the Fed Agent that was with Det. Evers in the unmarked. They stopped the BB because he was not ID'd as such, and therefore, technically, in their eyes, she could have been. Once they pulled him over, they served the warrant and took her in, because of the stop, protcol meant they took her.

Now, If anyone can tell us for sure what door KC left JB office, then, the story could change, according to LP.. Jes sayin'

 

[nancy botwin]

I think the Todd Black issue could be really significant in this case.
---
Todd Black is either an agent of Casey, thus authorized to speak on her behalf (meaning his statements can be admitted at trial per the party opponent exception to hearsay-- see Themis's exellent post on the topic).
If he's an agent, in a non-legal capacity, he can be interviewed by LE and any info he has about Casey or the alleged crime can be subpoenaed.
---
or
---
Todd Black is a part of the defense team, his dealings with Casey and Baez are protected by privilege and his public statements on her behalf could be admitted at trial under the hearsay exceptions cited above. Also, see Faefrost's post #31 above for explanation of how privilege could attach.
---
or
---
Todd Black is neither an agent of Casey nor the defense team and therefore not protected by any privilege -- he can be interviewed and all info can be subpoeaned.
---

I think Todd Black info could be very significant. Why is Todd Black involved?? Why does Baez publicly acknowledge he is part of "the team"-- in spite of the fact that Black's sustained involvement has only caused problems for the defense?

It is my opinion that Todd Black is probably linked to some sort of publication/media entity. I think that entity paid Casey's second bond as consideration for a contract granting them the right to ultimately publish Casey's story. To me, this is the only logical explanation for why Todd Black is allowed to speak on behalf of Casey and Baez-- Casey has to have authorized it and there must have been something in it for her.
So I'm curious:
When was Todd Black first contacted?
Who contacted Todd Black?
I'm also curious about the content of their correspondence--
What contracts or agreements were signed? What were the terms of those contracts?

I think Casey had contemplated a staged kidnapping for some time-- Rev. Grund alluded to this on NG last week-- so I wonder if Casey also contemplated selling the rights to her kidnapping story and, if so, when she may have sought an agent/ publisher.

I think Todd Black could provide a piece to this puzzle.

 

[LeLe1953]

:bang::bang::bang:

The only Todd Black I could find works in a production co. with two employees. He calls himself a producer. The contact number is the same as the one on his correspondence so it has to be him. What is that all about?

:waitasec: IMO it means JB & anyone attached to him, including the Anthonys are more interested in the dollar than justice or Caylee OR Casey's freedom. I don't think Cindy or any of them care if Casey rots like Caylee did as long as they get a few bucks. :behindbar

 

[LeLe1953]

:beamup:

Maybe LE needs to take a little trip to see Mr. Black in the flesh. hehehe I guess first they would have to find him. They could start by looking on the moon since he appears to be foreign to the planet on which the rest of us live.

:beamup::beamup: So HE's Cindy's new neighbor. :crazy:

 

[LeLe1953]

If I were TB, I wouldn't start spilling my guts about KC's guilt or innocence just on the say-so of a television statement.

If he did, he would get a MUCH better movie & book deal than the rest.

 

[Friptzap]

Actually he can IF he is an employee of JB the attorney of record. In much the same way prosecution cannot subject the defense attorneys secretary, receptionist or office staff to questioning. It is very dependent on who is paying TB what his status is regarding client privelege. If JB is paying him out of his business funds either as a regular employee or an independent contractor (such as an investigator would be) then the privelege most likely applies. (remember the privelege is Casey's, not TB's or JB's). But if TB is either not being paid, or is being paid by some other source such as the family, then he is a third party and privelege does not apply.

No actually he cannot. Only the lawyer is bound by that privilege. Nobody else.

 

[LeLe1953]

I have NEVER believed the "under the bridge story" and will NOT believe it until LE says it is true. If it were really the bondsman and they were not concerned that she was trying to run, they would have waited until he took her to the jail. LE didn't wait..........the stopped him and arrested her on the spot.

The story does not wash in my eyes.

:detective: I think LE either called or set it up with BB to do this stop/switch under the bridge. I do not think they were let little Ms thing turn herself in on murder charges. They most likely did not want to stop CA car & get KC out as Cindy might "casey" them. If their plan was to run they are really stupid.

 

[Friptzap]

Because the attorney-client privilege often balances competing interests, it defies a rigid definition. However, one often-cited characterization was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950). The court articulated five requirements: first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a client at the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in the communication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

Found here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+client+privilege

 

[Friptzap]

:detective: I think LE either called or set it up with BB to do this stop/switch under the bridge. I do not think they were let little Ms thing turn herself in on murder charges. They most likely did not want to stop CA car & get KC out as Cindy might "casey" them. If their plan was to run they are really stupid.

The bounty hunter could have been simply follwing his investment.

 

[Girlrilla]

They claim the driver of the transfer car was the bail bondsman. He just put $51.26 into her commisary account at the jail so whatever went on under that bridge was worth that much to the bondsman.

*spit*

LMAO

 

[nancy botwin]

Because the attorney-client privilege often balances competing interests, it defies a rigid definition. However, one often-cited characterization was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950). The court articulated five requirements: first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a client at the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in the communication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

Found here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney+client+privilege

Privilege and Work Product doctrine extend and apply to an attorney's non-attorney staff like paralegals, secretaries, investigators, etc. If this weren't the case, lawyers wouldn't be able to have any staff.

 

[Blink34]

I think the Todd Black issue could be really significant in this case.

respectfully snipped and bolded by me...


I think Todd Black info could be very significant. Why is Todd Black involved?? Why does Baez publicly acknowledge he is part of "the team"-- in spite of the fact that Black's sustained involvement has only caused problems for the defense?

It is my opinion that Todd Black is probably linked to some sort of publication/media entity. I think that entity paid Casey's second bond as consideration for a contract granting them the right to ultimately publish Casey's story.

I think Todd Black could provide a piece to this puzzle.

I AGREE- WTH is This Guy?

WHO IS TODD BLACK?

 

[nancy botwin]

I AGREE- WTH is This Guy?

WHO IS TODD BLACK?

Exactly!
I keep picturing the moment in the Wizard of Oz when they pull back the curtain! I bet/hope the media is all over this one and I can't wait to find out the answers.

 

[Gaia713]

I guess they could but JB already covered that at the press conference today..he spouted how TB is NOT part of the defense team and has not been privy to meetings and conversations. I doubt if he would talk, pretty sure he would say the same as JB, if they could get on the same page lol.

He may not be a member of the defense team, but his paycheck is signed by them. I hear deny deny deny

 

[Friptzap]

Privilege and Work Product doctrine extend and apply to an attorney's non-attorney staff like paralegals, secretaries, investigators, etc. If this weren't the case, lawyers wouldn't be able to have any staff.

That conflicts with the second and third requirements:

second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively

So I won't be telling my lawyers sevretary anything! Of course you may if you wish. Nobody can act as a lawyer but a lawyer, that is illegal.

 

[Friptzap]

Also another good source:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9706.html
They state here:
Also, because the communications must be in confidence, if a third party not having a common interest is allowed to be present during the communications or if it is intended that the communications be delivered to a third party, the attorney-client privilege will not apply. I hope she was alone with him! Not!

And they mention work product which is a seperate issue and not as well protected:
Besides the attorney-client privilege, another way of keeping information away from another is under the "work-product" doctrine. This doctrine is based upon the policy of encouraging attorneys to put forth a full effort in connection with the preparation for potential litigation or work during the litigation. Materials collected, documents created, and the attorney's thoughts may be protected from discovery by the other side under the work-product doctrine. However, this doctrine is not as far reaching as the attorney-client privilege. Counsel for the other side may establish that the prejudice to his or her client, if he or she is not permitted to obtain certain information, will impose an undue hardship on the client. If the client is unable to obtain substantially equivalent material by other means, the court will balance interests and, in appropriate cases, rule that despite the work-product issue, documents or other tangible items must be delivered to the other side.

Typically if an attorney want's to maintain his privilege he will NOT write anything down to be transcribed and will keep his notes to himself, otherwise he may loose that privilege. And I believe this work product applies to his personal efforts not his secretarial staff.

The last two paragraphs in this above website are very interesting esspecially this sentence:

Many jurisdictions have an ethical rule, applicable in litigation matters, that makes it a mandatory requirement for an attorney to disclose confidential client information to a court when it is necessary in order to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.

 

[nancy botwin]

That conflicts with the second and third requirements:

second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively

So I won't be telling my lawyers sevretary anything! Of course you may if you wish. Nobody can act as a lawyer but a lawyer, that is illegal.

I wasn't arguing that Todd Black or a secretary could act as a lawyer, but that if they are retained or employed by an attorney to assist in the representation of a client, information and documentation related to that representation is privileged.

I understand that this seems inconsistent with the parameters established by
United Shoe Machinery Corp., an older decision.
More recently, the Martha Stewart litigation prompted the Courts to specifically contemplate the PR firm in the context of legal privilege-- See, http://www.wileyrein.com/publication.cfm?publication_id=11490

A recent Federal District Court decision applies the attorney-client privilege to protect the confidentiality of certain communications in which a public relations firm is involved in representing a client. Specifically, the Court held that communications (oral and written) between and among a public relations firm representing the target of a grand jury investigation, lawyers representing the target and the target are protected by the attorney-client privilege, provided such communications relate to obtaining or providing legal advice for the target...​

More generally, the privilege does extend to firm employees like secretaries and paralegals-- it has to!

When I was a legal secretary, my attorney boss would stop at my desk before leaving for his afternoon jog. He'd hand me a stack of client files and direct me to make copies or compose and mail letters on his behalf. The client didn't lose his protection under privilege doctrines just because my boss went jogging-- nor should s/he.

When I brought coffee to my boss and his client, anything I overheard was protected by privilege. When my boss asked me to sit in on a deposition to give my "female perspective," everything I witnessed was protected by privilege.

Attorneys typically bill 300-500$ an hour, so they can't spend their time making copies and filing. Attorneys also lack expertise in a myriad of fields which may enhance the quality of representation (psychiatric expertise, forensic expertise, etc.)-- they need to be able to enlist third-party firms to assist in the representation, without jeopardizing the client's protection under privilege doctrines.

Many jurisdictions have an ethical rule, applicable in litigation matters, that makes it a mandatory requirement for an attorney to disclose confidential client information to a court when it is necessary in order to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.

This is true-- but it generally relates to future or ongoing crimes-- could definitely still present an issue in this case, IMO-- not so much an issue of privilege, but the security of Baez's license to practice law.

 

[Friptzap]

I wasn't arguing that Todd Black or a secretary could act as a lawyer, but that if they are retained or employed by an attorney to assist in the representation of a client, information and documentation related to that representation is privileged.

I understand that this seems inconsistent with the parameters established by
United Shoe Machinery Corp., an older decision.
More recently, the Martha Stewart litigation prompted the Courts to specifically contemplate the PR firm in the context of legal privilege-- See, http://www.wileyrein.com/publication.cfm?publication_id=11490

A recent Federal District Court decision applies the attorney-client privilege to protect the confidentiality of certain communications in which a public relations firm is involved in representing a client. Specifically, the Court held that communications (oral and written) between and among a public relations firm representing the target of a grand jury investigation, lawyers representing the target and the target are protected by the attorney-client privilege, provided such communications relate to obtaining or providing legal advice for the target...
​

More generally, the privilege does extend to firm employees like secretaries and paralegals-- it has to!

When I was a legal secretary, my attorney boss would stop at my desk before leaving for his afternoon jog. He'd hand me a stack of client files and direct me to make copies or compose and mail letters on his behalf. The client didn't lose his protection under privilege doctrines just because my boss went jogging-- nor should s/he.

When I brought coffee to my boss and his client, anything I overheard was protected by privilege. When my boss asked me to sit in on a deposition to give my "female perspective," everything I witnessed was protected by privilege.

Attorneys typically bill 300-500$ an hour, so they can't spend their time making copies and filing. Attorneys also lack expertise in a myriad of fields which may enhance the quality of representation (psychiatric expertise, forensic expertise, etc.)-- they need to be able to enlist third-party firms to assist in the representation, without jeopardizing the client's protection under privilege doctrines.



This is true-- but it generally relates to future or ongoing crimes-- could definitely still present an issue in this case, IMO-- not so much an issue of privilege, but the security of Baez's license to practice law.

Maybe the lines have been blured by too many lawyers? But the way Ir ead it you should not have been sitting in at all to give your "female" prespective. You became a third party. To me it reads lawyer. Now maybe the courts have opened that up a little bit more because of the Martha Stewart case but to me that means they must be providing advice to the client, not just sitting there talking or giving a female perspective. Just my opinion, I cannot find any "law" stating these privileges. I believe this is bar association moral code more than anything.

But when I look at this requirement I cannot see how anyone else could be permitted to be involved in the situation. :

third, the communication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively

I think what happens is, these poeple may have a confidentiality agreement with the lawyer but when it comes down to a subpena they may very well be required to testify.

 

[lawlady84]

I wasn't arguing that Todd Black or a secretary could act as a lawyer, but that if they are retained or employed by an attorney to assist in the representation of a client, information and documentation related to that representation is privileged.

snipped

I think you are confusing work product and privledge - a secretary is protected from being called as a witness because everything she handles is the attorney's work-product and must go through him. Also, if you are represented by a "law firm" the privilege is between that LAW FIRM and the client. So, even if I am X's primary lawyer, another partner in my firm can speak to her and that is covered. The point is for the attorney to be able to get as much information from a client as possible.

But, it only applies to sworn in, ABA card carrying lawyers.

And you're right the rules have been relaxed in a lot of cases - I forget the name of a case, but now for internal investigations of companies conducted by outside counsel hired by the company, employees are protected via attorney client privilege for anything they disclose to the attorney. Now the attorney is said to represent the whole "company" rather than the partnership or the board of directors. This allows a company to internally get its tax/whatever act together, without each individual analyst being afraid to tell the truth in fear they will be subpeonaed becuase they aren't covered by their company's attorney client privilege.

But again, this is relaxing on the part of the attorney, not the client. Attorneys cannot have 3rd parties in the room who aren't lawyers or agents, or the privilege is waived. Even having parents in the room of someone who is over 18 without express permission waives privilege.

IMO TB would not be covered, since he has his own company and is not a member of the "Baez Law Firm PC" or whatever he wants to call it. You can't just arbitrarily assisgn agency powers to PR firms ..

 

[faefrost]

I am almost 100% certain that emplyees of the lawyer do not constitute a "third Party" for purposes of determining privelege, at least in most states. Regardless of what purpose the lawyer actually uses them, as long as the use is relative to the case in question or the general operations of the legal practice.

(As an example, the lawyers secretary or an investigator or consultant brought in for the case would still maintain the privelege. But having his accountant in the room... not so much.)

Now the lawyer cannot truly control any public utterances of any employee except via confidentiality agreements and civil lawsuits, so as a matter of good policy and practice they will seek to minimize any direct contact or information that employees come in contact with. BUT the Prosecution cannot supeona or subject a defense attorneys employees in order to gain information that would normally be protected by privelege. The major exception is in the case of ongoing criminal activity.

In the case of TB, it really does depend on which way the money is flowing and what if any formal signed agreements he has with JB.