Time to leave the ship!

Link to tweet

former client maybe. Just maybe.

Those are expensive billable hours.

... that's some stuff right there !!!

Manafort: "...take my money ..."

Law abiding adult: "....Hell naw !!! ..."

Looks like there was a parting of the ways (probably mutual) when Gates told them he was going to roll over. Gates needs just one plea bargain specialist, not three defence lawyers.

That's an interesting turn of events. I know lawyers quit but for reasons under seal? That doesn't sound good for Gates.

Oops. I don't think money laundering has been brought up yet, either.

In fact, in certain instances it is required, so as to avoid disclosure of confidential client information.

For example, the US District Court for the District of Minnesota has a rule, 49.1(c)(1)(E) that expressly requires documents that support a motion to withdraw to be filed under seal if they disclose privileged attorney-client communications.

I have definitely had to increase my reading (and google use) to try to keep the treason stuff straight.

I was only 9 during Watergate, and Nixon was just a regular crook anyway.

because their client has asked/demanded that they lie to the court as part of a defense, or the client has told them something that they can't reveal because of attorney-client privilege but that would make an ethical defense impossible.

When a scumbag like Gates is the client I'd guess it's something like that. Or worse.

A news report (I think it was on Rachel) the other night said that Manafort was/is broke. Even his daughters wondered why he suddenly was acting so "cheap". After the sanctions and his pals in Ukraine were no longer able to bankroll him he was broke and that is why he worked for the moron for free. It was an investment of his time hoping for the big payoff...lifting sanctions.

A. They're not being paid;

B. The client isn't following their advise; or

C. Both.

Explaining the nature of a conflict might well require disclosure of attorney - client communications

The motion is basically, "We have just discovered that we have an exisiting conflict, in that we represent both A and B, who have conflicting interests."

Explaining that the client wants to do something illegal, or unethical, necessitating withdrawal of counsel, would have to be made under seal and in camera

While attorney-client privilege generally is not considered "privileged" it typically is considered confidential if the client wants it to be treated as such. Moreover, even though one cannot protect it via the privilege route, client communications are privileged.

One can't file a motion to withdraw based on a conflict that simply says "Our representation of client A creates a conflict with our representation of Client B". You have to explain what the conflict is and that, more often than not, takes you into the realm of disclosing client communications.

"While attorney-client privilege generally is not considered 'privileged...'" What is that supposed to mean? I assume you mean the attorney client relationship itself is not privileged, but may be confidential. If it is a matter of record that you represent both, it is not confidential, and there is no reason to file the motion under seal. In most cases the conflict is apparent on it's face.

If one client is unknown, and the client won't agree to have the representation revealed after the circumstances are explained, I agree , in an abundance of caution, the nature of the relationship might have to be disclosed under seal, but I think there would be few circumstances where actual attorney client communications would have to be revealed.

If so, you presumably are aware of the canons of ethics that require lawyers to protect the confidentiality of client communications. And thus you also are aware that there is a difference in something being "privileged" and something being confidential. Lawyers often have to disclose non-privileged information but do so under seal because it contains confidential information. Whether a court will allow it remain under seal is a separate question, but a lawyer would be taking a significant risk in not at least making the effort.

Putting aside the distinction described above, which is the subject of law review articles, the point remains that it is not enough simply to say to a court "Allow me to withdraw as counsel in this criminal case because my representation of that client and of another client create a conflict. Take my word for it." You have to explain the conflict and as noted, that often involves disclosing information that, if not privileged, is nonetheless considered confidential by the client and thus filed under seal until such time as the court decides whether to unseal it.

Finally, an attorney's representation of a client on a particular matter often is not a matter of public record. It may become known if and some public correspondence disclosing the representation is made or an appearance in a proceeding is made on behalf of the client. Put another way, the attorney-client relationship begins when someone comes to me and says he or she wants me to send a letter to someone, or file a lawsuit, or take some other action on their behalf. But it isn't a matter of public record until I actually do one of those things.

You needn't lecture me on when, or if, representation is a public record. As I stated in my previous post, I agreed it may be necessary to file under seal to preserve a confidence. There may even be times when communications need to be discussed, as I also said.

It was never my intention to lead anyone to believe that the motion based on a conflict would not have to be supported. Again, in many cases the conflict, when it arises would be plain on it's face, and would not involve client communications. If not, and if supporting the motion requires the revelation of matters ordinarily kept in confidence, they would have to be filed under seal and discussed with the court in camera.

So it looks like we actually agree that the filing of the motion to withdraw with the explanation under seal doesn't rule out the possibilty that the reason for withdrawing is a conflict.

I think where we disagree is in how likely it is that conflict is the basis of the motion. If it turns out to be the reason it was filed under seal, I'll acknowledge that. I do, however, think it's more likely money based, or a failure to follow advise.

An issue as to whether Gates' lawyers' representation of him and Steven Brown created a conflict came up last November, but in December, Gates' lawyers told the court they could continue to represent Gates.
https://www.law360.com/articles/993287/gates-keeps-defense-atty-despite-potential-conflict


My gut, which could be wrong, tells me that something has come up with respect to those two representations that the lawyers now feel is a conflict; if so, whatever has come up almost certainly is sensitive and would be explained under seal rather than openly.

But you could be right that its money or failure to follow advice.

Three lawyers representing Trump associate Rick Gates in money-laundering case against him have asked to be dropped from the case. Meanwhile, Tom Green, a lawyer known for hammering out plea deals, stays on as counsel for Gates.

Link to tweet

who reportedly is well-known for negotiating plea deals a few weeks ago. Atty Green was spotted meeting with Mueller's team raising speculation that Gates will flip.

His name is Tom Green, and as of that article, he was not his official lawyer. I guess he is now.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/370424-gates-new-attorney-seen-meeting-with-mueller-report

It was explained elsewhere that Gates lawyers also represent Bannon and Prebius. Those , I think are the ones that left. The new guy Green not only knows how to move on plea deals, but now the interests of Bannon & Prebius will be distinctly different if Gates is ready to throw in the towel.

He needs to join this band he used to play with and plead guilty.

Last edited Fri Feb 2, 2018, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

their other clients Gates' lawyers would have a conflict and would be required to withdraw as counsel.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Manafort has not flipped. But Gates can flip on him, and on Trump.

Manafort's problem is that he owes millions to that Russian fertilizer king guy, the ones who has more money than god already, the one whose plane has been showing up in the various places that Trump golfs.
Plus, Manafort appears to be deeply involved in the money laundering for the Russian mob.
And most likely the coup.
Oooops.

I have a feeling he might come down with a Russian heart attack.

Or his lawyers are implicated too....