Posted on 07/18/2019 9:39:19 AM PDT by detective
In yet another surprise development in the Michael Flynn case, on Tuesday Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered Flynn’s former Covington and Burling lawyers to appear in court to receive a lecture on ethics from the senior legal ethics counsel for the District of Columbia Bar. While Sullivan’s order expressed concern only over Covington and Burling’s delay in providing Flynn’s new attorney, Sidney Powell, access to his complete legal file, given recent revelations, one must wonder whether Sullivan is equally concerned that a conflict of interest existed in Covington and Burling’s representation of Flynn.
Tuesday’s order followed a briefing by Powell and federal prosecutors on the possible effects on Flynn’s sentencing of recently unsealed court records in the criminal case against Flynn’s former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Flynn, who pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017 to making false statements to the FBI, awaits sentencing before Sullivan.
At a status hearing last month, the attorneys informed Sullivan that Flynn was scheduled to testify in mid-July at Rafiekian’s trial. But then last week, the judge presiding over Rafiekian’s trial in a Virginia federal court unsealed various filings, including a motion by the government seeking to brand Flynn a co-conspirator. It also stated that the prosecution will no longer call Flynn as a witness.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Or just lazy.
Hypothetical: I am an attorney working a case and I hired a consultant to brief me on a topic that is relevant to this case and others that I may work on in the future. Are my notes on this consultant's work part of the file if I did not bill my client?
“Hypothetical: I am an attorney working a case and I hired a consultant to brief me on a topic that is relevant to this case and others that I may work on in the future. Are my notes on this consultant’s work part of the file if I did not bill my client?”
Not part of the file, no different than you pulling pages or even forms from a notebook you received at some seminar. But I don’t think that is what this is about.
The Judge did initially accuse Flynn of treason and backtracked. The Judge is a flake.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/18/18146654/michael-flynn-sentencing-treason
“In a fiery statement at the sentencing hearing for former national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the presiding judge, Emmet Sullivan, denounced Flynn and argued that he might be guilty of treason”
Maybe, but I doubt he has another house to sell.
And a crowd-source fund would probably be banned.
I will give you a lawyer’s answer: it depends.
I have been saying that from the day the news reported the names of his attorneys, and their law firm. The firm has close connections to the Democrat Party and hired Eric Holder when left his AG position.
They had been working against him, and for the prosecution from the get-go. They could have had all the charges dismissed within a month or two.
Their plan was to bleed him dry with legal fees to force him into bankruptcy and then lie about President Trump.
It’s what corrupt prosecutors do when they are determined to convict innocent people.
The judge can actually order his previous attorneys and their firm
To refund all the fees Flynn paid to them.
ethics training?
How about prison??
You don’t stay employed by Covington and Burling for long if you are an incompetent lawyer; corrupt is another matter.
Those attorneys will be resigning from the firm once this is over, with a very nice separation agreement. PR wise, the firm can’t afford to keep them; and they will pay them big bucks to go away and get a non-disclosure agreement in return.
They could also get disbarred if Judge Sullivan really pushes it, but bar associations are very reluctant to do that because they have to know these attorneys have first on lots of other attorneys, including those on the ethics committee.
The media wrote it that way.
I think he was warning Flynn.
That hypothetical has nothing to do with this case.
what? you mean to imply that bar lawyers blackmail and/or extort other bar lawyers??
dayum...
The Judge is taking an insanely long time to render a verdict. He should have thrown out the entire case the day the Mueller report came out.
Is the Judge stupid or corrupt?
Don’t be surprised if his prior attorneys end up like Mark Rich...to take their deep State secrets to the beyond.
There’s also small possibility, they just sucked, and are trying to keep Flynn from suiing them for incompetence...
But best guess, is they were deep State rats, and part of a huge mosaic of fraud to sabotage Flynn.
Unleash the dogs of war on them!!!
I mean Sydney Powell...fixed it.
It's not usually blatantly stated, but there are ways for an attorney to communicate the fact that they know lots of dirt on lots of other high-powered attorneys; and judges. I call it a mutual extortion society.
This is not just limited to the the legal field; it happens in other branches of government even up to the highest levels. It's one of the reasons people in high offices get prosecuted for even the most serious crimes because those potential defendants are not going to go down by themselves. That's a fact.
This is why the Deep state fears AG Barr and President Trump; they have nothing to hide.
I don’t think Judge Sullivan is requiring the senior legal ethics counsel for the District of Columbia Bar to appear at a hearing for the purpose of lecturing Flynn’s former attorneys.
I believe Judge Sullivan is so pissed off the the DOJ prosecutors blatantly violated the constitutional rights of Senator Stevens, referred them to the D.C. Bar Ethics Committee, which did absolutely nothing to discipline them. I’m sure Sullivan thought they should have been disbarred.
Sullivan is requiring the Ethics Committee to show up so Sullivan can ask for any reasons Flynn’s former attorneys shouldn’t be disbarred. Sullivan doesn’t need the Senior Ethics Counsel for the D.C. Bar to lecture Flynn’s former attorneys; Sullivan could do that himself.
“Sullivan is requiring the Ethics Committee to show up so Sullivan can ask for any reasons Flynn’s former attorneys shouldn’t be disbarred.”
Excellent point.
There is far more to this case than is being reported.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.