Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #80

[simplemind]

1. Banfield & whoever are being very irresponsible about this privilege business. I don't know what they actually said, but "people" (as in commenters on the internet) seem to be assuming or reading their words to mean that there is essentially no privilege in joint representation if all clients are present during conversations with the attorney. This is simply not correct. Full stop.

Joint representation of clients whose interests may come to diverge is tricky. I've been making this point since we first heard SB's name, considering the issues, stakes, and potential interests at play here.

However, where joint representation is otherwise appropriate and executed properly, privilege is not inherently lost due to group discussions. That would make it nigh impossible to do, and it would also result in potential variances in key information (particularly where the conveyer of information may struggle to provide precisely the same information in multiple conveyances).

2. I think we need to stop talking about SB being "formally" or "officially" "retained." He has never used that phrasing. What he said was that he was first involved in this matter on 9/11. The Laundries are his long-time clients for a variety of matters. Their conversations about legal matters are going to be considered privileged. Attorneys have ethical requirements (around, for example, conflicts of interest, privilege, zealous representation, joint representation, etc.), but we are not required to fill out specific forms or document administrative matters in any particular way. Typical ways of handling things have grown up over time because they help ensure ethical matters are considered and handled properly, and because in the event of a question or concern, it's always good to be able to show your work (so to speak). It's good practice. But if SB didn't formally open a new matter or fill out certain forms each time the Ls had a legal question or even a new transaction/legal matter, that doesn't mean he was not still their attorney/acting as their attorney in between discrete matters. (This is all assuming that he was otherwise behaving appropriately, not involved in any crime with the client/s in question, etc.; imo, it's not usually useful to focus on wild, imagined, fantastic Hollywood-ized scenarios.)

I've thought about the joint representation privilege issue a lot in this case and I think it is very nuanced, arguable both ways, and not knowable at this point with the information we have. That said, what I find fascinating is that if SB is claiming joint representation for all three, Ch,R,BL, then wouldn't he technically have to have been sharing all details BL provided him, even in private, with his parents?

 

[jjonez]

I've thought about the joint representation privilege issue a lot in this case and I think it is very nuanced, arguable both ways, and not knowable at this point with the information we have. That said, what I find fascinating is that if SB is claiming joint representation for all three, Ch,R,BL, then wouldn't he technically have to have been sharing all details BL provided him, even in private, with his parents?

Exactly the point I was making up thread. And when?

 

[BCSleuth]

Because SB and the L’s were aware that Brian was not at home did not know where he was. Per SB, the Laundries themselves went out searching for Brian on 2 different days, why not ask LE where he is if they believed they knew? . On Friday when LE visited the house on Friday, per SB , it was not the Laundries who filed the missing person report after their son had been home for 4 days and knew LE did not know where he was

The Laundries searched the next day after Brian left. Then LE kept saying they knew where he was. LE is not going to tell the Laundries where Brian is because that is private information, so there is no point in asking. You don't file a missing person report on somebody when LE says they know where that person is. It wasn't until the Laundries finally found out that Brian was truly missing that a missing person report was filed.

 

[cady]

I've thought about the joint representation privilege issue a lot in this case and I think it is very nuanced, arguable both ways, and not knowable at this point with the information we have. That said, what I find fascinating is that if SB is claiming joint representation for all three, Ch,R,BL, then wouldn't he technically have to have been sharing all details BL provided him, even in private, with his parents?

Yes, and everything the parents told SB, about what BL originally told them...that's what I want to know! jmo
I'm betting that the stories do not match, which may have caused a big blow up on the 12th when SB spoke with BL.
Everyone knows what everyone has said, all are distraught, BL packs to abscond and Chris begs him not to leave. jmo

 

[Bluepopsicle]

Why would he respond? This just further and further exonerates the Laundries. If LE kept saying they knew where Brian was then why would the Laundries or their lawyer doubt that and report him missing? As of the 16th LE allegedly knew *exactly* where Brian Laundrie was.

I guess for me, the question would be why then would the Laundries not reach out to the police to ask where he was, or if he was picked up? I have to imagine, as a parent, if you were worried about your son’s whereabouts, that is exactly what one would do, either themselves or through SB.

 

[LeeJay55]

They could potentially have been parked close enough to use the wifi if they were not sitting in the cafe all that time. Or, GP could have been working on non-wifi tasks in the van for a lot of that time. The story doesn't say.

Well at the Piglet they were Inside I believe!
The co op outside!
Jmo

 

[Sassafrass]

I've thought about the joint representation privilege issue a lot in this case and I think it is very nuanced, arguable both ways, and not knowable at this point with the information we have. That said, what I find fascinating is that if SB is claiming joint representation for all three, Ch,R,BL, then wouldn't he technically have to have been sharing all details BL provided him, even in private, with his parents?

NO. Generally speaking, and assuming all else has been handled correctly, attorney can only share confidential information of one joint client to the extent it bears on the legal status/situation of another.

Model Rule 1.7.
This may be useful. See p. 17 for a hypothetical.

Also see this for general guidance re other aspects of joint representation ethics.

 

[dkryder]

well, reportedly SB talked to brian one time alone. then several times with all 3. i'd like to know if in that call brian told SB something about gabby that he had not told his parents. so brian said he wanted to be a client. anyway, after that private call between SB & BL there might have been things SB now knows but mom and dad did not at the time (and may not even know now). so in talking to all 3 together then brian would have had to waive confidential info going to other parties those being mom and dad OR SB would have had, MOO.. to tell mom and dad when all 3 are there that there may be somethings i know you don't. MOO.

 

[sarahboirin]

The Laundries searched the next day after Brian left. Then LE kept saying they knew where he was. LE is not going to tell the Laundries where Brian is because that is private information, so there is no point in asking. You don't file a missing person report on somebody when LE says they know where that person is. It wasn't until the Laundries finally found out that Brian was truly missing that a missing person report was filed.

LE would need to tell the Ls where BL was if they had him in custody becos SB was his legal representation. So it doesn't make sense that SB knew he wasn't home but the police knew where he was. SB should have been asking where his client was.

 

[stormymama]

I think I've missed the details of the timeline somehow. I thought they had been on their trip before August. That's a much tighter timeline if they bought the van so recently.

The camper was purchased in August by the Laundries, not the van.

 

[cady]

NO. Generally speaking, and assuming all else has been handled correctly, attorney can only share confidential information of one joint client to the extent it bears on the legal status/situation of another.

Model Rule 1.7.
This may be useful. See p. 17 for a hypothetical.

Also see this for general guidance re other aspects of joint representation ethics.

But, in this case, I think that the information would have a bearing on all three. NO?? jmo

 

[Bertha96]

1. Banfield & whoever are being very irresponsible about this privilege business. I don't know what they actually said, but "people" (as in commenters on the internet) seem to be assuming or reading their words to mean that there is essentially no privilege in joint representation if all clients are present during conversations with the attorney. This is simply not correct. Full stop.

Joint representation of clients whose interests may come to diverge is tricky. I've been making this point since we first heard SB's name, considering the issues, stakes, and potential interests at play here.

However, where joint representation is otherwise appropriate and executed properly, privilege is not inherently lost due to group discussions. That would make it nigh impossible to do, and it would also result in potential variances in key information (particularly where the conveyer of information may struggle to provide precisely the same information in multiple conveyances).

2. I think we need to stop talking about SB being "formally" or "officially" "retained." He has never used that phrasing. What he said was that he was first involved in this matter on 9/11. The Laundries are his long-time clients for a variety of matters. Their conversations about legal matters are going to be considered privileged. Attorneys have ethical requirements (around, for example, conflicts of interest, privilege, zealous representation, joint representation, etc.), but we are not required to fill out specific forms or document administrative matters in any particular way. Typical ways of handling things have grown up over time because they help ensure ethical matters are considered and handled properly, and because in the event of a question or concern, it's always good to be able to show your work (so to speak). It's good practice. But if SB didn't formally open a new matter or fill out certain forms each time the Ls had a legal question or even a new transaction/legal matter, that doesn't mean he was not still their attorney/acting as their attorney in between discrete matters. (This is all assuming that he was otherwise behaving appropriately, not involved in any crime with the client/s in question, etc.; imo, it's not usually useful to focus on wild, imagined, fantastic Hollywood-ized scenarios.)

If someone has a free consultation with an attorney, via in person or over the phone, is that conversation privileged or is it privileged only after they actually retain the attorney? IMO.

 

[BCSleuth]

I guess for me, the question would be why then would the Laundries not reach out to the police to ask where he was, or if he was picked up? I have to imagine, as a parent, if you were worried about your son’s whereabouts, that is exactly what one would do, either themselves or through SB.

LE is not going to tell them where Brian is. Where an adult is currently located is private information. That would be a violation of privacy. They could have asked LE to ask Brian to contact them, but they decided not to, I guess. Brian had just spent 10 days with them so perhaps they decided to give him some space. I mean, Brian could contact them or go back home any time he felt like it, right? So it seems they decided to respect the fact that Brian apparently wanted some alone time. Seems perfectly normal to me.

And they knew Brian wasn't picked up, because his lawyer would have been notified.

 

[Sassafrass]

Yes, and everything the parents told SB, about what BL originally told them...that's what I want to know! jmo
I'm betting that the stories do not match, which may have caused a big blow up on the 12th when SB spoke with BL.
Everyone knows what everyone has said, all are distraught, BL packs to abscond and Chris begs him not to leave. jmo

A couple things to keep in mind:
1. "Joint" representation is really more like "concurrent" representation. That's why conflicts can arise - what might be good legally for one jointly represented client may (at any point) run adverse or at least not in alignment with what is good for another. Clients do not agree that they will stay aligned.

2. An attorney is not (supposed to be) a yenta (gossip). They can't reveal confidential information to other parties, or call out their clients. When the limit of being able to represent each cliebt's interests properly is reached, an attorney must withdraw. And if they withdraw from one, they cannot use confidential information of the one they dropped to aid or share with the one they kept.

3. Privilege outlasts life. Swidler & Berlin v. United States

 

[Truth Prevails]

I think I've missed the details of the timeline somehow. I thought they had been on their trip before August. That's a much tighter timeline if they bought the van so recently.

Entin is talking about when the Laundries purchased the camper that fits over their truck bed which is sitting in their yard and appears in most of Entin's videos.

Not Gabby's van.

My apologies if this has been answered already.

 

[x_files]

If this were a movie script it would be rejected for being too ridiculous.

yes, I'm still in shock.

 

[annwn]

If someone has a free consultation with an attorney, via in person or over the phone, is that conversation privileged or is it privileged only after they actually retain the attorney? IMO.

usually when you seek help, it is protected. You only retain them after the hear what they are getting into agree to it.

 

[ShadyLady]

At this point, if I were the Laundries, I would do a quick sale of all my properties and move to France or Spain...south america somewhere far away. Take the daughter and family. Try to grieve in private. This case will haunt them. Gabby's family has support, they have none. But, they have feelings, too.

If Gabby's mom reaches out to them, have a private conversation. PRIVATE.

 

[claire_parker]

Just wanted to say something about Gabby's time of death her dad said something about it looking like there was a clearing for a tent setup and a fire pit because there was a circle of rocks on the ground and her hiking shoes were left outside which makes me think that she took her shoes off to go into the tent and then she must have never left the tent on her own because the first thing she would have done was put her shoes back on. since she didn't text her friend on her birthday obviously she was gone by then. I think the door closing of the van in the YouTube video was Brian returning to the van after killing her after he had grabbed the tent and supplies but left her shoes? So I think she was killed the evening of the 27th.

 

[Sassafrass]

If someone has a free consultation with an attorney, via in person or over the phone, is that conversation privileged or is it privileged only after they actually retain the attorney? IMO.

If there is a private communication with an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, then generally, yes, it is privileged, whether or not the attorney is hired. In addition, there are usually state concepts of confidentiality that are larger than attorney-client privilege.

This seems to be a good overview (I haven't fact-checked it , but it's published by an excellent firm). Note in particular Q1 and Q14, but there is a lot of good information.