Comments on Advance Indiana™: Source: Criminal Defense Attorney Claims To Represent Multiple City Employees And Officials In Ongoing Federal Probe

Anon 909, I doubt that it's Whitestown, since ...

2014-07-21T06:11:28.714-05:00

Anon 909, I doubt that it's Whitestown, since that municipality in Boone County is a "town" and not a "city." Gary's original post stated:

they may not interview various city employees

(emphasis added). Gary's post seems to indicate that the municipality would have to be a city unless he was using the term "city" in a general sense. Given that Gary is usually laser-focused when using legal/statutory terms, I would think he meant "city" in the legal/statutory sense.

Whitestown. Please tell me it's Whitestown.as...

2014-07-20T21:09:21.932-05:00

Whitestown. Please tell me it's Whitestown.asedici about

in some cases -- two dudes in a car sharing a join...

2014-07-20T20:57:25.812-05:00

in some cases -- two dudes in a car sharing a joint -- representing co-defendants is not troubling as long as the co-defendants waive the conflict. in other cases -- multiple co-defendants in a meth-cooking and distribution ring -- representing more than one defendant is not advisable. the question an attorney has to ask himself is: how likely is it that I will end up sacrificing the interests of one client for another?

A law enforcement agency can ask to question anyon...

2014-07-20T13:18:46.095-05:00

A law enforcement agency can ask to question anyone in connection with a criminal investigation. The person can refuse on the basis of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or condition the questioning only in the presence of their attorney. What's alleged is that a defense attorney has told agents conducting the investigation that he represents certain individuals, none of whom can be questioned without his permission. That's supposedly the reason everyone has clammed up and not speaking to federal agents.

I am not an attorney so feel free to educate me. W...

2014-07-20T12:28:06.848-05:00

I am not an attorney so feel free to educate me. Why would the FBI need the defense attorney's consent to conduct an interview? I can understand the requirement to have a defense attorney present during any interview or questioning. I could also understand the defense attorney advising the client not to answer.

This is an issue I pointed out when Barnes & T...

2014-07-20T11:38:24.393-05:00

This is an issue I pointed out when Barnes & Thornburg represented the State (the FSSA i particular) in the lawsuit against contractor IBM in the Medicaid privatization project when the law firm already represented ACS, the major subcontractor on the job. ACS was a major witness in the case, and quite likely otherwise would have been named as a party.

ACS agreed to waive the conflict, a fact that Barnes & Thornburg noted in its contract with the State. (Which was by the way executed long after Barnes & Thornburg began billing for work done on the case.) Well of course, ACS agreed to waive the conflict as the company knew their own attorneys weren't about to sue its own client as a co-defendant. Of course, B&T argued that it could erect a "Chinese Wall" at the firm to keep the side of the firm that represents ACS separate from the side that represents the State and whose attorneys might sue ACS. There is absolutely nothing in the disciplinary rules that allow a firm to do this to evade conflict of interest rules.

But here is the thing. There are situations in which, under the rules, conflicts of interest cannot be waived. That was true in the Medicaid lawsuit and that appears to be the case here. Of course, in the Medicaid lawsuit the Disciplinary Commission was all over it charging the B&T attorneys with violating the ethical conflict of interest rules. Of course I'm kidding...