[Huntress]

Good questions. I’m no expert on criminal law, but I am an attorney.

With respect to the mother’s attorneys, I’d say that whatever she told them about recording device is privileged in any event, even though they no longer represent her. They did the right thing by withdrawing from the case when they found out—they can’t rat her out, but they also can’t assist her in committing a crime.

The judge only has jurisdiction over the custody case, and doesn’t have the authority to bring criminal charges against the mother. He could sanction the mother, find her in contempt of court, or notify the local prosecutor of the case, so that the prosecutor could investigate and possibly file charges.

[DoughtyOne]

Good questions. I’m no expert on criminal law, but I am an attorney.  Then you're one up on me, on this topic.

With respect to the mother’s attorneys, I’d say that whatever she told them about recording device is privileged in any event, even though they no longer represent her. They did the right thing by withdrawing from the case when they found out—they can’t rat her out, but they also can’t assist her in committing a crime.  It was my understanding that attorneys were required to remain silent regarding matters on the case they were hired in for.  If new criminality developed, they were required to make some notification.  I'll be the first to admit I am probably wrong, but it would seem the 'officers of the court' would have some legal obligations. Perhaps resigning was their only obligation.  If true, that's too bad.

The judge only has jurisdiction over the custody case, and doesn’t have the authority to bring criminal charges against the mother. He could sanction the mother, find her in contempt of court, or notify the local prosecutor of the case, so that the prosecutor could investigate and possibly file charges.  I would agree here.  I do hope the judge did notify the local DA.