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

[Friptzap]

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 ..

That is exactly what I thought on the "lawyer-client privilege" But I guess I am a little mistaken on the "work-product" portion. Some what anyway. I realize they are bound by aggreeements ussually but I thought they could still be called and would only suffer for breaking a civil agreement with their "boss".

It all comes down to moral codes of ethics though anyway not actual laws on the books right?

 

[mysteriew]

Most likely what TB knows is hearsay anyway. I think it is unlikely that TB heard anything directly from Casey. He probably heard what he knows from JB. It might be helpful to the investigation but probably won't end up in court.

 

[nancy botwin]

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.

I'm familiar with work product and privilege doctrine, both conceptually and operationally. If an attorney's secretary types a letter to the client, on the attorney's behalf, and the letter concerns legal representation, the contents of that letter are likely protected by both work product doctrine and atty-client privilege. The secretary cannot be compelled to testify about the contents of the letter, nor can the attorney/secretary/client be compelled to produce the letter-- etc.

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.

True.

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

Not true. Privilege often extends to communications involving an attorney's non-attorney agents and employees-- including, but not limited to, secretaries, paralegals, private investigators and clerks. And, again, PR firms retained by an attorney to assist in the course of legal representation.

 

[nancy botwin]

First, Friptzap, I think you should find a law school and pitch this idea: you provide interactive final exams to their students. Seriously! Your law-related posts often prompt me to contemplate more issues simultaneously than any exam I've taken It's exciting.
Sorry this will be really long... it'll get more exciting in the middle :woohoo:

I cannot find any "law" stating these privileges. I believe this is bar association moral code more than anything.

Privilege doctrines are codified as professional obligations in each state's Rules of Professional Conduct, the dictates of which govern attorney conduct. Privilege doctrine is common law, meaning it's created through court decisions and not statutory provisions-- so, unfortunately, you can't just google and find an indexed and comprehensive law to read, like you could with homicide or manslaughter. Also, the most recent and factually similar court decision will tend to control. There are slight variations among jurisdictions, but because issues of privilege are substantially related to a defendant's constitutional right to legal representation, core criterion are observed by all courts when a judge rules on evidence admissibility or the state's subpoena power during discovery.

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.

If I were the client's female friend (not employed at the law firm) and she wanted me to sit with her during the meeting, that would kill the attorney-client privilege. Because I was her attorney's employee and an agent assisting in her legal representation, privilege remained intact.

I know you were nonplussed by the (awesome) value of my 'female perspective,' but...imagine this scenario:

I'm not a lawyer and I've never been a legal secretary. I'm unemployed and I'm having an intense day. I grab the phone and dial the # of my old attorney because I need to score some legal representation asap. The phone rings in the office of attorney Albert Ames. Rhoda the receptionist sighs and prepares to answer the phone, like she always does. Rhoda takes the gum out of her mouth and sticks it under her desk, like she always does. Rhoda reaches for the phone--

If I were more polite maybe I would have taken the time to get to know Rhoda. If I had, I would have found out that Rhoda didn't go to college and works as a receptionist to pay the bills. She's 20 years old and hopes that by the time she's 22, she'll get her big break and be cast on MTV's The Real World. Rhoda thinks the law is boring-- so boring that she's never even watched an episode of Law & Order. She loves ABBA and thinks the ABA is pretty stuffy...But I'm very busy and important, so I never took the time to find any of this out.
--
Rhoda: Hello, Albert Ames and Associates.
Me: It's Nancy Botwin! I need to speak with Albert Ames.
Rhoda: Uh, hang on....what's your #, I'll have him call you back in a sec.
Me: Honey, I don't think you understand. I've just committed a homicide. I have got to talk with Albert."

I confessed to murder and that confession is privileged. (Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.2d 997-- the confession is a direct quote, except the lawyer's name was actually Sam)

It's totally weird, but it's true-- and provides an intense illustration of how powerful privilege can be.

So, as faefrost said, communications between and among Todd Black, The Baez Law Firm and Casey could be protected by privilege. But in order to assert that privilege, Baez will have to prove that he hired Black to assist in Casey's legal defense. And only those communications which relate to Todd Black assisting Baez in Casey's defense can be protected. This is why I think things could get interesting. Because there's NO WAY Jose Baez found Todd Black and agreed to pay him money to do what he's doing in the name of assisting in Casey's defense. :woohoo:

 

[Friptzap]

First, Friptzap, I think you should find a law school and pitch this idea: you provide interactive final exams to their students. Seriously! Your law-related posts often prompt me to contemplate more issues simultaneously than any exam I've taken It's exciting.
Sorry this will be really long... it'll get more exciting in the middle :woohoo:


Privilege doctrines are codified as professional obligations in each state's Rules of Professional Conduct, the dictates of which govern attorney conduct. Privilege doctrine is common law, meaning it's created through court decisions and not statutory provisions-- so, unfortunately, you can't just google and find an indexed and comprehensive law to read, like you could with homicide or manslaughter. Also, the most recent and factually similar court decision will tend to control. There are slight variations among jurisdictions, but because issues of privilege are substantially related to a defendant's constitutional right to legal representation, core criterion are observed by all courts when a judge rules on evidence admissibility or the state's subpoena power during discovery.


If I were the client's female friend (not employed at the law firm) and she wanted me to sit with her during the meeting, that would kill the attorney-client privilege. Because I was her attorney's employee and an agent assisting in her legal representation, privilege remained intact.

I know you were nonplussed by the (awesome) value of my 'female perspective,' but...imagine this scenario:

I'm not a lawyer and I've never been a legal secretary. I'm unemployed and I'm having an intense day. I grab the phone and dial the # of my old attorney because I need to score some legal representation asap. The phone rings in the office of attorney Albert Ames. Rhoda the receptionist sighs and prepares to answer the phone, like she always does. Rhoda takes the gum out of her mouth and sticks it under her desk, like she always does. Rhoda reaches for the phone--

If I were more polite maybe I would have taken the time to get to know Rhoda. If I had, I would have found out that Rhoda didn't go to college and works as a receptionist to pay the bills. She's 20 years old and hopes that by the time she's 22, she'll get her big break and be cast on MTV's The Real World. Rhoda thinks the law is boring-- so boring that she's never even watched an episode of Law & Order. She loves ABBA and thinks the ABA is pretty stuffy...But I'm very busy and important, so I never took the time to find any of this out.
--
Rhoda: Hello, Albert Ames and Associates.
Me: It's Nancy Botwin! I need to speak with Albert Ames.
Rhoda: Uh, hang on....what's your #, I'll have him call you back in a sec.
Me: Honey, I don't think you understand. I've just committed a homicide. I have got to talk with Albert."

I confessed to murder and that confession is privileged. (Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.2d 997-- the confession is a direct quote, except the lawyer's name was actually Sam)

It's totally weird, but it's true-- and provides an intense illustration of how powerful privilege can be.

So, as faefrost said, communications between and among Todd Black, The Baez Law Firm and Casey could be protected by privilege. But in order to assert that privilege, Baez will have to prove that he hired Black to assist in Casey's legal defense. And only those communications which relate to Todd Black assisting Baez in Casey's defense can be protected. This is why I think things could get interesting. Because there's NO WAY Jose Baez found Todd Black and agreed to pay him money to do what he's doing in the name of assisting in Casey's defense. :woohoo:

Thank you for the compliment. I understand what you are saying but what stops Rhonda from running off to the press to make 500k? and avoid the hasstle of the wait to make a budnle off real world if she can even ever get on it? Only her contract with Albert (Sam)? What does she stand to loose? How can her boss be blamed for saying anything? It is the Lawyers reputation and proffesional conduct at stake, but who can blame him if Rhonda blabs?

BTW I have been on and off the site intermitently and had not noticed this post till now. I was searching my old posts for information regarding depos' which kinda relates to this... I am so tempted to put someone to the test on the Depo thread! ;-)

 

[DotsEyes]

We don't let anyone sit in on our discussions with clients. We shut the doors so no one can overhear our conversation. Then, we reduce things to writing for the file, but not those things that will become discoverable. We keep secrets.

Once, I met with a potential clients, a married couple. Some of the things they told me were unbelievably upsetting to me and very, very personal to them. I refuse to represent them because I did not think they had a winnable case after I reviewed all the records and documents. I advised them to seek a second opinion with another attorney of their choosing. Long story short, they sued me. The things I knew about them would have been catastophic to their frivolous suit and would cause major problems for them in their family and community. However, the information was privileged. I said not a word.

The suit was dismissed, but not until after I spent over $20K in litigation. It was vengeance and trickery because I would not pursue a bad case on their behalf and they knew I would never break the confidentiality of the attorney/client privilege.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Very interesting now that TB/GC has come out and publicly stated the firm is not working for Baez. Wonder how this will play out.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

We don't let anyone sit in on our discussions with clients. We shut the doors so no one can overhear our conversation. Then, we reduce things to writing for the file, but not those things that will become discoverable. We keep secrets.

Once, I met with a potential clients, a married couple. Some of the things they told me were unbelievably upsetting to me and very, very personal to them. I refuse to represent them because I did not think they had a winnable case after I reviewed all the records and documents. I advised them to seek a second opinion with another attorney of their choosing. Long story short, they sued me. The things I knew about them would have been catastophic to their frivolous suit and would cause major problems for them in their family and community. However, the information was privileged. I said not a word.

The suit was dismissed, but not until after I spent over $20K in litigation. It was vengeance and trickery because I would not pursue a bad case on their behalf and they knew I would never break the confidentiality of the attorney/client privilege.

That must have been terribly frustrating for you. Ouch.

 

[Lexington]

We don't let anyone sit in on our discussions with clients. We shut the doors so no one can overhear our conversation. Then, we reduce things to writing for the file, but not those things that will become discoverable. We keep secrets.

Once, I met with a potential clients, a married couple. Some of the things they told me were unbelievably upsetting to me and very, very personal to them. I refuse to represent them because I did not think they had a winnable case after I reviewed all the records and documents. I advised them to seek a second opinion with another attorney of their choosing. Long story short, they sued me. The things I knew about them would have been catastophic to their frivolous suit and would cause major problems for them in their family and community. However, the information was privileged. I said not a word.

The suit was dismissed, but not until after I spent over $20K in litigation. It was vengeance and trickery because I would not pursue a bad case on their behalf and they knew I would never break the confidentiality of the attorney/client privilege.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience. Glad to see an attorney with ethics. I worked in law firms for years as a paralegal. Quite a few of the attorneys that I worked with over the years could not wait to get the clients out of their office so that they could discuss the nature of the closed door conversations with not only the other attorneys but with office staff. I remember one matrimonial attorney, who was representing the wife of a high profile psychiatrist in NYC, personally came to me and showed me pornographic material that the wife had confiscated from the husband. He also told me the entire history of the marriage and the doctor's homosexual relationships as reported to him by his wife. He was interrupted by the head of the firm who told him to stop it, but he was not fired or reported to the Ethics Committee of the Bar. That was one of many times that I was made privy to confidential communications, that I didn't seek out or even seem interested in.