Dan Rashbaum is in Tallahassee about to try the murder case for Donna Adelson. He previously represented Donna's son, Charlie Adelson. Both waived conflicts, but last night Charlie filed a motion asking that Dan not cross examine him. That threw the case into chaos this morning as jury selection was supposed to start. You can follow along here:
Judge Stephen Everett is hearing from lawyers on both sides about Charlie Adelson's assertion Monday that he doesn't waive his conflict of interest involving Dan Rashbaum, the defense attorney who represented him at trial & is representing his mother, Donna Adelson, in her trial.
— Jeffrey Burlew (@JeffBurlew) September 17, 2024
4 comments:
Is this not a colossal attorney fuck up? How do you represent a mother accused of same crime as son you represented that you know will be a witness? At minimum you need a written waiver which he didn't have. I'd be worried about the bar.
How do you know he didn't have a written waiver? That seems unlikely.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/696524-attorney-conflicts-delays-seeking-justice-for-dan-markel-continues/
All of this was explained to Donna Adelson by Judge Stephen Everett when she first re-retained Rashbaum as her “new-again” attorney. Donna acknowledged the conflict and waived it. Repeatedly. So, too, did Charlie Adelson – or so the court was led to believe. Rashbaum insists that Charlie had given Rashbaum his verbal waiver, permitting his sort-of-former lawyer to represent his mother in her trial. And that remained the case until today – Sept. 17, the first day of what would have been jury selection in Donna’s trial. More than 100 prospective jurors were already in the courthouse when it was revealed that Charlie decided to revoke his waiver, permitting Rashbaum to represent his mother.
Worse, Rashbaum didn’t even have such a waiver in writing.
Everett wasn’t pleased, nor was Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman, who has quarterbacked the prosecution of Markel’s executors.
This wasn’t a fuck-up. Rashbaum isn’t a rookie. Under the specific circumstances of this case, he knew he needed to perfect Charlie’s waiver in writing. He didn’t because he was afraid Charlie would revoke the oral waiver. He didn’t want to risk it. Maybe it was the money? Who knows what drove him to make such poor decision?
This is also an ethical blunder. No doubt the Bar will hear about it. It would be interesting to see what Charlie and Donna say to Bar investigators if a formal investigation is conducted.
In the end, Donna pays the ultimate price due to another indefinite delay. She can’t be happy about that. Unhappy clients turn on their lawyers, even when they agreed to the very decision that now makes them unhappy.
Post a Comment