I heard some lawyer-types on tv say they think it’s because they know he’s going to perjure himself, so they gotta go.
2 Likes
I understand what you’re saying - my husband was general counsel for a holding company and ran the legal all over the world and worked with other lawyers from all over the place.
I agree about the Motion to Withdraw this close to a set trial date - I always did think that this close to trial on a complex indictment it was out of the norm for Gates’ attorney to file it without an extremely good reason. I don’t think most federal judges would consider an argument about payment to be adequate to allow a withdrawal in this time frame. So something else is going on. And I would have agreed about working out a plea but if that was the case, since Gates’ other attorney wants to withdraw, there would have to be some counsel of record. The judge isn’t going to just cut him loose from his lawyers without another lawyer stepping in at this late date.
@fiachat - That was my first thought when this came up a week or so ago. It’s still a thought I’m having, too.
9 Likes
Can’t force them to suborn perjury either. It must be bad if they want to withdraw so close to trial.
3 Likes
Given that I’ve always considered TOS Roddenberry’s requiem hymn to John Kennedy and the New Frontier and the crew an allegory of the Democratic Party generally, that’s especially appropriate here.
1 Like
The attorneys want out and have told the judge so. Gates wants to respond to what they told the judge; what he did in his pro se motion this morning was to ask the judge for more time to file his response.
Previously I’ve described the three attorneys currently representing Gates as straight arrows.
Possible; see above.
4 Likes
Onboard with both of you here. Both of you have far more relevant experience than I do on this. And lord knows I haven’t let that keep me from speculating like a coked-up currency trader about this.
The motion to withdraw is an enigma. A pro se response by the client saying “please don’t rule yet” when everyone knows he’s got the heaviest of heavy hitter firms in his corner is perplexing. I have never heard of anything like that before, at least not where there’s a sane, solvent client with access to other lawyers involved.
Best fit I can make is that his own lawyers think they are in a “mandatory withdrawal” situation, his new lawyers are not in that situation but do not want to become of record and the client thinks he’s going to be in a deal with Mueller soon and will be willing to cut them off then, but doesn’t want his current lawyers to be officially out until then, just in case it falls through. Not wanting him to make a deal wouldn’t be the kind of “irreconcilable differences” that would lead most lawyers to want to withdraw if there’s a deal in the offing. The only thing I can think of that fits is that they made a material misrepresentation in a pleading or argument based upon information provided by the client that he later told them in confidence was false and he won’t let them correct the record.
10 Likes
OT, but here’s the latest batshit from Delusionville, Conspiracyland, USA…
true, but typically that kind of conversation ends with the lawyer saying, “I won’t be a party to that” and then the conversation ends.
For Gates to be firing current counsel because they are unwilling to suborn perjury, he’d would already have lawyers lined up willing to do exactly that. And despite common public belief, finding lawyers willing to suborn perjury in Federal court is all but impossible.
3 Likes
No other explanation makes sense, does it? His lawyers want out, no one else will come in including Green/Sidley who will only help cut a deal and will never agree to be appear before the court and become trial counsel.
5 Likes
And it must have been the lawyers who made the misrepresentation rather than the client, because otherwise, they could probably still hang on for a few weeks while he cuts a deal. Unless they don’t think he’s going to be able to cut a deal.
Adding to the mystery, if I were Sidley’s risk management committee and I wouldn’t let a firm lawyer make an appearance, I also wouldn’t want them ghosting or reviewing or helping the client draft and file that pro se motion.
7 Likes
I did not know that Gates had filed a pro se Motion.
I’m completely puzzled because usually where the the client’s lawyers have filed to withdraw and then the client files a pro se motion, I would think the client has lost his mind and wanted to represent himself. That happens; but when it’s just a motion to hold off ruling on his lawyers’ motion and why his lawyers wouldn’t have cooperated with that request and put it in their own motion is a true mystery to me. If there is nothing untoward the lawyers are trying to avoid, one would have thought they would cooperate with Gates as far as timing goes. Curiouser and curiouser.
4 Likes
… at an affordable price. FIFY. You don’t think Trump is going to just give away pardons?
I’m also a lawyer, litigation but not criminal. The pro se response doesn’t seem that odd to me on its own - Tom Green apparently has not agreed to substitute as counsel in the criminal case, so he won’t be required to move forward as trial counsel – if the Judge lets his current counsel out, you can be damned sure she won’t let the next counsel out no matter what, certainly not for non-payment. I’ve done that once or twice in the past - worked with counsel of record but refused to appear in the case because I knew that there would be a payment issue and that I would be stuck. (And sure enough, there was a payment issue; I have no idea why I let myself have any role at all, but that’s a lesson learned.) So anyway, Tom Green is probably retained only for the purpose of attempting to negotiate a plea and doesn’t want to be of record, and Gates doesn’t want to go pro se and can’t find substitute counsel, so he filed a pro se request that the court not rule on the motion to withdraw yet.
As to why his existing counsel want out, NCSteve’s guess that they made a material misrepresentation that he won’t let them correct seems at least very plausible if not probable. We should start a pool with all the guesses.
5 Likes
I think “plausible if not probable” is exactly the right description. It’s the only thing I can think of that fits based on what we know, but this is all being done in secret, so we know so very little.
Hahahaha! There are about 10 lawyers who frequent the TPM boards.
1 Like
That’s my guess, too.
Are there any situations under which lawyers excuse themselves that you would know about?
From a layman perspective I feel the only situation would be if they know he is gonna commit a crime. But in that case do lawyers excise themselves or report the possible crime that might be committed?
I am beginning to wonder if there is a problem with someone else paying Gates’ Sidley & Austin fees. I have read that unlike Manafort, Gates does not have the amount of money to pay for a trial, and had to struggle to make bail. So the thought has crossed my mind that someone or more than one person are proposing to pay Gates’ Sidley & Austin fees and until that is approved (ethical conflict of interest red flag in such arrangements), the lawyers of record can’t be relieved, and Green appears unwilling or at least in no particular rush to substitute in as attorney of record.
Anyway, my semi-literate speculation.
1 Like
That would make sense. I’m content not knowing, I just have a wish that whatever’s going on would have to do with Gates flipping on Manafort. It’s how Mueller got Gotti, so it’s a cheerful scenario.
You think only 10? We are legion.