Well, this should be entertaining: “In a twist that could have many in Hollywood on edge, federal prosecutors revealed Thursday that they have taped conversations between indicted sleuth-to-the-stars Anthony Pellicano and clients who hired him to dig up dirt on rivals.” (Greg Risling, AP/Macon Telegraph, Feb. 16). More: Feb. 16, Feb. 7, etc. And the San Francisco-based Recorder has much more about this week’s indictment of a prominent Hollywood attorney in the unfolding scandal (Kellie Schmitt, “Attorney Terry Christensen Indicted in Case Involving Hollywood PI Pellicano”, Feb. 17).
Posts Tagged ‘ethics’
First lawyer indicted in Pellicano scandal
And very likely not the last: “A grand jury indicted prominent Hollywood attorney Terry Christensen on Wednesday for allegedly hiring investigator Anthony Pellicano to wiretap Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, the ex-wife of billionaire and former MGM owner Kirk Kerkorian. Christensen is accused of paying Pellicano at least $100,000 to illegally eavesdrop on Bonder Kerkorian’s conversations with her attorney, a court mediator and others to gain a tactical advantage in a legal dispute.” Christensen’s firm, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro of Century City, vigorously denied the allegations. (Jesse Hiestand, “Lawyer indicted in Pellicano case”, Hollywood Reporter, Feb. 16; Greg Krikorian and Andrew Blankstein, “Entertainment Lawyer Indicted in Pellicano Probe”, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15). For our earlier coverage, see Feb. 7, etc.
Pellicano charged; Hollywood lawyers next?
Following a three-year FBI investigation (see Nov. 11, 2003), Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano pleaded not guilty to a 110-count federal indictment (PDF) unsealed Monday. “Pellicano, 61, is charged with organizing and masterminding a corrupt enterprise that allegedly wiretapped phones, entered private computers without authorization, committed wire fraud, bribery, identity theft and obstruction of justice.” Targets of his illegal snooping are said to include celebrities Sylvester Stallone and Garry Shandling and New York Times reporter Bernard Weinraub. (Andrew Blankstein and Greg Krikorian, “Pellicano Indicted on Racketeering Charges”, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6; Roger Friedman, “Cruise, Jacko Lawyer Safe for Now”, Feb. 6; AP/Hollywood Reporter).
The FBI originally got on Pellicano’s trial following a bizarre 2002 incident in which a dead fish, a rose and a note that said “stop” were left on the car window of Los Angeles Times reporter Anita Busch, who was working on a story about actor Steven Seagal at the time. What has sent nervous ripples through Hollywood’s legal community is that Pellicano has worked for many prominent entertainment-industry lawyers, and prosecutors are highly interested in finding out how much they knew about his alleged tactics.
Several veteran Los Angeles lawyers who specialize in defending white-collar crime suspects said they had been retained by other attorneys who are under scrutiny in the Pellicano case.
The lawyers all spoke on condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation, including the possibility that some of their clients could be indicted.
Some of them said they thought it highly likely that attorneys would be indicted in the near future.
Asked how serious the government was about indicting certain attorneys, one defense lawyer said: “Beyond serious.”
Added the lawyer: “That dead fish led to a treasure trove of stuff.”
(Greg Krikorian, Henry Weinstein and Chuck Philips, “Private Eye May Be Tried Again”, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3). More: Defamer; Luke Ford; Robert W. Welkos, “Lawyer to Celebrities Is Subject of Inquiry”, L.A. Times, Feb. 7 (many persons whose privacy was allegedly infringed were on the other side of lawsuits from celebrity lawyer Bertram Fields, Pellicano’s most prominent lawyer-client); Kellie Schmitt and Justin Scheck, “Hollywood PI Pleads Not Guilty to Racketeering”, The Recorder, Feb. 7.
“The paradox of blackmail”
Threatening to expose someone’s embarrassing personal secrets unless they pay you money or agree to cooperate with you in other ways is ordinarily a legal offense, that of extortion. There’s a big exception, however: if you happen to be simultaneously pursuing a legal claim against your target, even a very weak one, such demands can magically become lawful after all, although they revert to being unlawful if the demands you levy are somehow excessive. Jim Lindgren and Eugene Volokh explain (both Feb. 1).
Don’t know much about property
Authorities have finally cracked the largest burglary ever reported from a Massachusetts residence, the 1978 theft of a Cezanne and six other paintings from the Stockbridge home of collector Michael Bakwin. And who’d been holding on to the paintings all these years? Retired criminal defense attorney Robert M. Mardirosian, 71, who came into their possession soon after their theft when the burglar — whom Mardirosian was representing in an unrelated matter — left them at the lawyer’s residence. (The burglar had intended to fence the paintings right away, but Mardirosian had advised him he might get caught doing that.) Not long thereafter the burglar was slain by criminal associates. Mardirosian created dummy corporations and accounts to hold the paintings and at least twice tried to sell them, but was blocked when the Art Loss Register, which intervenes to prevent the sale of stolen art, took steps to stop that from happening. Mardirosian, who now lives in a gated community in Falmouth on Cape Cod, says he acted from legitimate motives: “My whole intent was to find a way to get them back to the owner in return for a 10 percent commission.” (Stephen Kurkjian, “1978 art heist solved”, Boston Globe, Feb. 1). Plus: updates February 2011 (on attorney’s conviction and return of paintings to owner).
Mass amnesia at bus trial
Hey, remember that ludicrous lawsuit about a bus crash we wrote about last month where the passengers collected $17.5 million from the bus manufacturer on a trumped-up design-defect theory after swearing that they hadn’t sued the bankrupt bus charter company (Dec. 1)? Turns out there may be some perjury involved, and a federal bankruptcy judge is none-too-pleased at the attempted double-dip. (Tommy Witherspoon, “Bankruptcy judge outraged over bus crash testimonies”, Waco Tribune-Herald, Jan. 14 (via Prince)).
Don’t
Don’t kidnap your client in an attempt to collect your legal fees from him, or recoup the bond money you advanced. Especially not if you’re going to be taking him away from his wedding celebration. It’s just plain wrong, so don’t do it, okay? (“Lawyer Allegedly Kidnaps Client Over Fees”, AP/ABC News, Jan. 13)(Waco, Texas).
One QC’s view
Distinguished British lawyer Arthur Marriott QC, as quoted by Richard Ackland in the Sydney Morning Herald, and perhaps not entirely irrelevant to the situation in some other countries too:
The great ideas to assist the poor and bring about access to justice, such as the introduction of legal aid, have been met with an explosion in the number of lawyers. Other schemes such as no win-no fees encourage predatory lawyering. The payment of lawyers on a time basis does not provide an incentive for the efficient conduct of trials. And finally, efforts to reform the litigation system have systematically been sabotaged and wrecked by lawyers. As Napoleon said, the administration of justice is too important to be left to lawyers.
(“The rise and rise of the predatory lawyer”, Nov. 18).
Colleagues to Pattis: knock it off
As readers may recall (Dec. 9), Connecticut attorney Norm Pattis has lately written a series of powerful commentaries at Crime and Federalism suggesting that some of his fellow plaintiff’s attorneys are too often tempted to take on the causes of vengeful, deluded or disturbed complainants, especially during “the periodic lull in cases of merit”; he further argued that society’s interest calls for strong measures against the filing of meritless cases. It seems, however, that these commentaries have not sat well with many of his colleagues. On Dec. 20 Pattis described one wave of reaction:
The other day, a newspaper called to ask for permission to run an old item. I granted permission, and now my email box is replete with messages from new readers, in this instance members of the plaintiff’s bar, not at all happy that I wrote about my sense that not all cases have merit.
And three days later (Dec. 23) he has further thoughts in response to being verbally pummeled on a listserv of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association:
…All I am saying is that a significant percentage of plaintiffs bring deep-seated psychological injury to their cases that is not caused by a defendant’s misconduct, and these clients transfer all their anger and disappointment onto the first available target, whether it be defendant or lawyer. I suspect any lawyer practicing more than a couple of years can draw this distinction with ease.
Was I suggesting that defendants are somehow devoid of the same sociopathy? Not at all. I suspect many defendants are disturbed as well. But there is a crucial difference — the defendant did not choose to be in court….
I haven’t lost the will and zeal to fight, far from it. But I do get to choose not to become more than the blunt instrument of those clients whose cases lack merit, and whose psyches bring nothing but hatred and rage to a courtroom.
Little white lies — to protect the bar’s image
The Texas Young Lawyers Association has published one of those “Fact/Fiction” guides to the jury selection process. Among its assertions: “Fiction: Lawyers ask questions designed to figure out who will help reach a verdict in their client’s favor.” And, by contrast, “Fact: The main thing we’re looking for from potential jurors is the ability to be open to both sides of a debate.”
Clay Conrad at JuryGeek (Dec. 18) finds this a good example of “Why People Think Lawyers Are Liars” and explains:
Let me make it clear: any associate with my law firm who looks mainly for jurors to be open to both sides of a debate will be unemployed before Voir Dire is over. We want jurors who will NEVER, EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHATEVER THE EVIDENCE consider the other side of the debate. We want jurors who are 100% biased towards our side, 100% hostile to the other side, and if we can get 12 of them, we want them.
We will settle for a fair and impartial jury, as a bare minimum. We assume, and have never seen this assumption proven wrong, that the other side is also seeking jurors who will be committed to their case, and biased against ours. That’s the way the game is played – and shame on TYLA for lying to the public and prospective jurors about it….
Any lawyer who says he wants a fair and impartial jury is either incompetent (being deluded by bar association PR) or is simply lying, lying, lying. The public knows that. I’ve spoken to many high school classes. I ask them what they think a lawyer wants out of a jury, and they tell me a jury that will vote for their client. We know they know. Yet we strangely persist in lying to them when we know we’ll be caught. That’s either insane or stupid.
What is weird is that bar associations lie, to people who they know will KNOW they are lying, in a vain attempt to improve the public image of the bar. What they are in fact doing is proving to the general public that lawyers are liars and manipulators who cannot be trusted – because they lie when, if they gave any thought to it, they’d know they’d be caught by anyone with two brain cells to rub together.