The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
I'm sure David is interested in some of the passages about Trump, his lawyer, and the crime-fraud exception.
ReplyDeleteA post discussing how criminal defense counsel should avoid certifying a corporate entity's compliance with a grand jury subpoena, when you suspect it is not true--or worse having your less experienced co-counsel sign the certificate of compliance at the last minute so you do not have to, would be good. The blog's readers may have some ideas for what to do in this circumstance.
ReplyDeleteOpening yourself up to future testimony because you signed, or had your junior co-counsel sign, the certificate of compliance when you suspected it was not accurate, is probably not good lawyering. The certificate is the equivalent of providing testimony to the grand jury--it is in lieu of in-person testimony under oath. Signing that as the criminal defense attorney, when you have reason to believe it is not accurate (and the client is using you to conceal non-compliance), feels like a textbook case of when the crime-fraud exception should apply.
By vote, how many criminal defense attorney blog readers would provide testimony on behalf of their clients when they suspected their clients were concealing documents called for in the subpoena? How many readers would expect the crime-fraud exception to apply at that point?
There should be outrage here, but it should be outrage in how the lawyer was used by the client. For credibility of this blog, a post on this topic is warranted.
Zealous advocacy is one thing. But remember your oath as a member of the bar. You can't be both a sworn fact witness and an effective advocate.
I agree. Also, dumb for lawyer to sign at all. Anybody can serve as a custodian. This was somebody being used.
ReplyDelete