Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Dan Markel Case: Lingering Questions Over Who’s Paying Katherine Magbanua’s Legal Fees
By DAVID LAT
at 3:27 PM
March 28, 2017
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/the-...r-whos-paying-katherine-magbanuas-legal-fees/
Her lawyers make it sound like The Adelsons are or at least did fund a portion of her legal fees.
Sorry I missed it, but what are you reading as at least a partial admission that the As are paying for KMs attorneys?
Because the lawyer basically sounds they want to hide that information.
So why not just say we are working pro-bono or something.
They could have said that months ago.
Because the lawyer basically sounds they want to hide that information.
So why not just say we are working pro-bono or something.
They could have said that months ago.
IMO, the lawyers' response to the state's motion should be the same whether they are worried about their fee arrangement or whether everything is 100% on the up and up. Why would they want to set a precedent that they just fold and gladly provide the requested information if they otherwise believe it's confidential and the state hasn't made the requisite showing of proof to warrant the Court inquiring further? I wouldn't read too much into it as having any bearing on whether there is really something amiss or not.
IMO, the lawyers' response to the state's motion should be the same whether they are worried about their fee arrangement or whether everything is 100% on the up and up. Why would they want to set a precedent that they just fold and gladly provide the requested information if they otherwise believe it's confidential and the state hasn't made the requisite showing of proof to warrant the Court inquiring further? I wouldn't read too much into it as having any bearing on whether there is really something amiss or not.
meanwhile their "client" rots in jail.
Under just about any scenario, KM would still be in jail right now. Even if she cops a plea it's not going to a get out of jail free card. The time she is serving now will count towards whatever sentence she eventually gets. The fact that they haven't yet negotiated a deal doesn't really mean much in terms of whether there is an actual conflict of interest.
The problem here is that even if the attorneys are doing everything above board, they should have known that the appearance of a conflict, especially in a case like this, is something to stay far away from.
So imo. The judge needs to privately view the payee documents.
And then make their decision which will be viewed under the sunshine law later on. Jmo.
that's actually a pretty good idea.
I've wondered that too. He just may not be capable of making decisionsI believe SG goes to court on Monday. Why he isn't working on a plea deal is beyond me.....
I believe SG goes to court on Monday. Why he isn't working on a plea deal is beyond me.....
1. well we don't really know if SG is or isn't working on a deal but i don't think he is YET because he's still caught up in the Latino "machismo" of not wanting to rat out his baby mama. i think during the alleged "toilet wine/pruno" conversation he stated that. but that may change as he gets closer to trial and he starts thinking about the possible life and death sentences.
2. SG is being declared indigent so it appears that nobody is paying his legal fees so the conflict of interest issue is a non-issue for him.