All things Cynthia Baldwin

http://www.inhouseblog.com/cynthia_baldwin-2/

Louis Freeh’s 267-page report on the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal delivered a clear verdict on the counsel provided to Penn State by then-general counsel Cynthia Baldwin, labeling it “seriously deficient."

They may not have access to her. She was probably limited about what she could say to them. ethically.
 
I think Curley and Schultz have a right to feel betrayed unless Baldwin can show that she told them precisely beforehand that she wasn't acting for them when she went in with them. Didn't she say a confusing "you can get your own lawyer [if you want to]" not a clear "you should" or "if you want a lawyer you will need to find your own". Not likely a mistake; as an ex-judge she shouldn't have a woman-speech problem of suggesting things too softly, but if Spanier ordered her to go then she manipulated her way in.

"Yesterday, Roberto filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her client based on Baldwin's appearance of a conflict of interest. “We were stunned. We were flabbergasted that she would have testified against our clients at a – I assume – as the grand jury after representing them before the grand jury.”
Hmph. They knew it was coming.

Gary Schultz's attorney, Tom Farrell, also had something to say about Baldwin's involvement in this case. “The charges are wrong. They are false. And now the newest charges are based on the testimony of a person who has betrayed her clients and her profession and testified falsely.”
http://www.whptv.com/news/local/sto...-in-the-trials-of/8o2LhZ_cb0GUCN_FO__mAg.cspx

She was taking orders from Spanier, but she worked for Penn. If she was told by present-day Penn to make full disclosure that should trump specific personal obligations.
 
Apparently, at least some of Baldwin's advice was in writing. I'm going to bet that she doesn't have a problem.
 
I can give one verified example. Spanier was told by the judge presiding over the grand jury that he could openly discuss his testimony. Baldwin also told him this in writing.

Spanier, after dismissing Baldwin from the Board meeting, told the Board that he couldn't discuss it because of the GJ secrecy. He was still claiming this in November of 2011, after the presentment was published.

It is in the presentment pp. 26-7.

Spanier would be well advised to take a plea or expect to see a lot more of Ole Jer.
 
I know this story is a little old,but its the first time I've seen it and it blew my mind
CB's lawyer must think we are some stupid people-wow
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/penn_state_legal_counsel_cynth.html

Personally, and professionally, I don't think she did anything wrong. When you are "general counsel" of a University, corporation or what have you, it is basic Ethics to understand that you represent the ENTITY and not any one individual. The judge asked her who she represented and she responded with "the University" as she should have. The judge said she could listen.

These guys should have understood the function of their General Counsel. They were paid big bucks to understand how their University worked and to make it work effectively. For them NOT to understand the very basic concept of "general counsel" doesn't make sense. From the day she was hired - it was her job to represent PENN STATE - not Penn State's president, administrator or anyone else.

And all these legal heavy weights coming out and saying she jeoperdized the case?? I don't understand that either. The judge seemed to understand who CB was representing and apparently, in PA, the judge has discretion over who may attend the Grand Jury.

I think this is all big hoopla over nothing and I have to wonder what the agenda of the legal heavy weights really is, if they are not even going to explain in their interviews what the purpose of "General Counsel" is - they should all have known and understood.

Salem
 
I posted this on the other thread, but the way there rules were set up, Spanier controlled what university people reported to the Board. He could, legitimately, keep Baldwin from reporting.
 
Personally, and professionally, I don't think she did anything wrong. When you are "general counsel" of a University, corporation or what have you, it is basic Ethics to understand that you represent the ENTITY and not any one individual. The judge asked her who she represented and she responded with "the University" as she should have. The judge said she could listen.

These guys should have understood the function of their General Counsel. They were paid big bucks to understand how their University worked and to make it work effectively. For them NOT to understand the very basic concept of "general counsel" doesn't make sense. From the day she was hired - it was her job to represent PENN STATE - not Penn State's president, administrator or anyone else.

And all these legal heavy weights coming out and saying she jeoperdized the case?? I don't understand that either. The judge seemed to understand who CB was representing and apparently, in PA, the judge has discretion over who may attend the Grand Jury.

I think this is all big hoopla over nothing and I have to wonder what the agenda of the legal heavy weights really is, if they are not even going to explain in their interviews what the purpose of "General Counsel" is - they should all have known and understood.

Salem

While it makes sense when you think about the function of General Counsel, remember also that the University indicated that they would pay for Curley and Schultz' representation, so when Baldwin accompanied them, I can see where they would have thought she was the counsel the University provided for them. Honestly, would you expect to ride to a court proceeding with an attorney who is representing another side in the same matter and walk in together?

The only accounts I have seen that claimed that she told the judge she represented the University was from her attorney and from spokesman Lanny Davis, both of whom have reason to protect her. If it was that clear to the judge overseeing the GJ proceedings, he should have corrected Curley and Schultz when each seperately named her as their counsel.

Also, I have read from several PA attorneys that she should not have been allowed to listen to testimony unless she was representing a witness, not the general entity of Penn State. I would think that goes double when she was then called as a witness herself.

Salem, if it is your contention she was only acting as General Counsel for the University, why did she offer to write "talking points" for Paterno to appear at the Grand Jury? As I have noted before, I am of the opinion that she was trying to get all the witnesses on the same page.

Sorry, but her actions in this case strike me as hinky and very possibly unethical.
 
Personally, and professionally, I don't think she did anything wrong. When you are "general counsel" of a University, corporation or what have you, it is basic Ethics to understand that you represent the ENTITY and not any one individual. The judge asked her who she represented and she responded with "the University" as she should have. The judge said she could listen.

These guys should have understood the function of their General Counsel. They were paid big bucks to understand how their University worked and to make it work effectively. For them NOT to understand the very basic concept of "general counsel" doesn't make sense. From the day she was hired - it was her job to represent PENN STATE - not Penn State's president, administrator or anyone else.

And all these legal heavy weights coming out and saying she jeoperdized the case?? I don't understand that either. The judge seemed to understand who CB was representing and apparently, in PA, the judge has discretion over who may attend the Grand Jury.

I think this is all big hoopla over nothing and I have to wonder what the agenda of the legal heavy weights really is, if they are not even going to explain in their interviews what the purpose of "General Counsel" is - they should all have known and understood.

Salem

Exactly, Salem! She also told all 3 (Curley, Schultz and Paterno) they could get their own attorney when she personally handed them the subpeonas...Paterno was the only one smart enough to do that and smart enough not to lie to the GJ. Methinks that these 2 are using desperate measures to avoid testifying at their trials and appear kind of stupid to not understand what she told them twice, once in front of the judge, that she represented the school only. Why as admins did they not understand that? What in heck made them think they didn't need their own attornies? I have a feeling that they were assured by buddie Spanier that the school would take care of them and this was nothing to worry about. He'll be the first to turn on them to protect himself. IMO
 
The only accounts I have seen that claimed that she told the judge she represented the University was from her attorney and from spokesman Lanny Davis, both of whom have reason to protect her. If it was that clear to the judge overseeing the GJ proceedings, he should have corrected Curley and Schultz when each seperately named her as their counsel.

If necessary, the judge can so testify, as a fact witness.

Also, I have read from several PA attorneys that she should not have been allowed to listen to testimony unless she was representing a witness, not the general entity of Penn State. I would think that goes double when she was then called as a witness herself.

It was disclosed, according to her, and permitted by the judge. That should be sufficient.

It also should be noted that it was clear enough to Paterno that she was University counsel, and not his individual attorney.

Salem, if it is your contention she was only acting as General Counsel for the University, why did she offer to write "talking points" for Paterno to appear at the Grand Jury? As I have noted before, I am of the opinion that she was trying to get all the witnesses on the same page.

Sorry, but her actions in this case strike me as hinky and very possibly unethical.

Well, she is general counsel and part of her job is protecting the University.
 
I have to say I am surprised that everyone else seems so willing to accept Baldwin's word at face value.

It is in the transcript that both Schultz and Curley identified her for the record as their counsel, with her in the room, and the judge supposedly (again, according only to her version) knew that they were mistaken, yet neither Baldwin nor the judge corrected either man.

To me, that strains credulity. But if I speculate that Baldwin did convince Schultz and Curley that she was representing them, all of the elements make sense. Then I understand why she approached Paterno to offer her assistance, why she drove her "non-clients", why she was allowed to sit in on proceedings, why both men identified her as their counsel and why nobody refuted it either time.

Until I see evidence that convinces me further, I will continue to distrust that Baldwin has been totally honest about her involvement. So far it is her word against the transcripts, the apparently unusual attendance at the Grand Jury, and this:

Then-head coach Joe Paterno appeared before the grand jury the same day with Joshua Locke as his counsel. Baldwin was not there. If she felt responsible to understand the testimony from Curley and Schultz on behalf of the university, why didn’t Baldwin feel the same about Paterno?

“Curley and Schultz were senior officers, they were members of the administration,” Davis said. “She felt it was her responsibility because she represented the university as general counsel.” By contrast, Paterno “was not a member of the administration.” Davis said she also noted that Paterno was with two attorneys — his son Scott Paterno and Lockehttp://pennstatetrustee.com/unbelievable-legal-mess-reporter-sara-ganim/

Why would it matter that Paterno had attorneys with him, if she were just listening on behalf of the University? His testimony would impact the fallout on the University just as much as that of the administrators. But again, if she were acting as counsel for Curley and Schultz, it would make sense why she didn't stay for Paterno's turn.
 
I have to say I am surprised that everyone else seems so willing to accept Baldwin's word at face value.

It is in the transcript that both Schultz and Curley identified her for the record as their counsel, with her in the room, and the judge supposedly (again, according only to her version) knew that they were mistaken, yet neither Baldwin nor the judge corrected either man.

Well, a judge doesn't "correct" a witness. Nor would Baldwin interrupt to correct a witness, as she was basically a guest.

To me, that strains credulity. But if I speculate that Baldwin did convince Schultz and Curley that she was representing them, all of the elements make sense. Then I understand why she approached Paterno to offer her assistance, why she drove her "non-clients", why she was allowed to sit in on proceedings, why both men identified her as their counsel and why nobody refuted it either time.

The refutation is answered above. It seems very clear, as Paterno knew, Spanier, Curley and Schultz should have known that they could have had their own attorneys. They also should have been aware that Baldwin was representing the University.

As to the evidence, the judge for the grand jury can testify and there might be a transcript.
 
My responses are in bold:

Well, a judge doesn't "correct" a witness. Nor would Baldwin interrupt to correct a witness, as she was basically a guest.

Ok, if the men claimed on record that she were their attorney and she was not, I would be willing to bet she had an obligation to correct the record, not waiting until the media began to raise questions. If she didn't want to interrupt the first man while he spoke, she had plenty of opportunity before the second witness testified to be certain he knew she was not representing him.

The refutation is answered above. It seems very clear, as Paterno knew, Spanier, Curley and Schultz should have known that they could have had their own attorneys. They also should have been aware that Baldwin was representing the University.

Keep in mind that Paterno's son is an attorney, and he may have wisely convinced his father that he needed someone to protect his own interest.

As to the evidence, the judge for the grand jury can testify and there might be a transcript.

The transcript wouldn't reflect what Baldwin may have said - she claims it was in chambers, not in open court. The judge will only testify to it if it were ever investigated. I just don't believe her.
 
My responses are in bold:
Ok, if the men claimed on record that she were their attorney and she was not, I would be willing to bet she had an obligation to correct the record, not waiting until the media began to raise questions. If she didn't want to interrupt the first man while he spoke, she had plenty of opportunity before the second witness testified to be certain he knew she was not representing him.

I would be willing to take that bet. Baldwin was not under oath. She was not called as a witness. This was a legal proceeding, not dinner table conversation.

The transcript wouldn't reflect what Baldwin may have said - she claims it was in chambers, not in open court. The judge will only testify to it if it were ever investigated. I just don't believe her.

It might. Some of the sidebars were recorded in the trial; those were not "open court" technically.
 
My responses are in bold:



The transcript wouldn't reflect what Baldwin may have said - she claims it was in chambers, not in open court. The judge will only testify to it if it were ever investigated. I just don't believe her.

I hear what you are saying. My thought is CB acted appropriately. Both Curley and Schultz had a duty and an obligation as Administrators to know and FULLY UNDERSTAND the scope of CB's employment. These are not unsophisticated men, naive in the process of administering an "entity." My point is that Curley and Schultz knew FULL WELL that CB did NOT represent them. They knew and understood that it would be a conflict for her to do so because CB was hired and charged with representing the University. IMO, this is on Curley & Schultz.

I agree with what J.J. is saying also.

I have not been following the case real closely, and I'm basing my opinions on the links I have read here. But this is pretty elementary to any attorney and/or coporate officer, IMO.

Salem
 
I hear what you are saying. My thought is CB acted appropriately. Both Curley and Schultz had a duty and an obligation as Administrators to know and FULLY UNDERSTAND the scope of CB's employment. These are not unsophisticated men, naive in the process of administering an "entity." My point is that Curley and Schultz knew FULL WELL that CB did NOT represent them. They knew and understood that it would be a conflict for her to do so because CB was hired and charged with representing the University. IMO, this is on Curley & Schultz.

I agree with what J.J. is saying also.

I have not been following the case real closely, and I'm basing my opinions on the links I have read here. But this is pretty elementary to any attorney and/or coporate officer, IMO.

Salem

I agree with these points, but returning to Jay Paterno, why didn't Curley, Schultz, and Spanier also consult their own attorneys. Certainly they had personal attorneys.

There is also the educational standards/experience issues. Curley and Schultz both had their master's; Spanier had his doctorate. All were long term senior corporate officers of a multi-billion dollar corporation.
 
I would be willing to take that bet. Baldwin was not under oath. She was not called as a witness. This was a legal proceeding, not dinner table conversation.
It might. Some of the sidebars were recorded in the trial; those were not "open court" technically.

I don't know - as a member of the bar, if someone wrongly names you in court as their attorney of record, in your presence, I can't imagine you wouldn't have an obligation to correct it. It isn't like a witness just making a false statement about what they did. It is materially related to the proceedings occurring at the moment, and it affects their right to counsel.

Granted, they weren't on trial, but the statements they made that day became the basis for perjury charges, and they didn't have counsel, although they claimed(thought?) they did.

I can't believe that Curley and Schultz cooked up the idea to claim Baldwin represented them; what purpose would that serve? How could they know that she wouldn't correct them on the spot? What would have happened if during questioning, Curley asked for a moment to confer with his counsel, Cynthia Baldwin? It would have looked very unprofessional for her to have sat quietly when he initially named her as his attorney, only to have her then have to explain that she couldn't advise him as she didn't actually represent him.
 
I don't know - as a member of the bar, if someone wrongly names you in court as their attorney of record, in your presence, I can't imagine you wouldn't have an obligation to correct it. It isn't like a witness just making a false statement about what they did. It is materially related to the proceedings occurring at the moment, and it affects their right to counsel.

If I say my attorney is Rlaub44, I don't think that you can interrupt and say you are not. They may also have to "register" who their counsel is beforehand.

Granted, they weren't on trial, but the statements they made that day became the basis for perjury charges, and they didn't have counsel, although they claimed(thought?) they did.

I can't believe that Curley and Schultz cooked up the idea to claim Baldwin represented them; what purpose would that serve? How could they know that she wouldn't correct them on the spot? What would have happened if during questioning, Curley asked for a moment to confer with his counsel, Cynthia Baldwin? It would have looked very unprofessional for her to have sat quietly when he initially named her as his attorney, only to have her then have to explain that she couldn't advise him as she didn't actually represent him.

I think that both thought they were so ingrained in the University, that they could do anything they wanted.

Occasionally, people have insisted that I advise them and I have to tell them that, no, I don't. Occasionally clients have assumed that I will "go along" with what they say, and I will have tell them, "No, I won't," but they still insist that I will. If they had asked her for counsel, it would not have looked unprofessional for her, in the least, to say, "I am not your attorney and cannot advise you."
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
833
Total visitors
922

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,750
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top