Respectfully, I completely disagree with your take on what is being said here.
Nejame represents CA and, as I mentioned in a post above, to which you have yet to respond, he doesn't have any retainer agreement limiting his representation in the narrow fashion that you are suggesting.
THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART is that although it's not his "place" to discredit evidence that the state or defense may rely upon, he does have a duty to his client, CA, to make sure she doesn't unnecessarily involve herself in the criminal matters to which she is not a party. If his client went on national tv, he darn well should have been consulted. The fact that he obviously was not shows a deep disconnect between attorney and client.