Lawyers for Rick Gates say they have 'irreconcilable differences' with client

[pnwmom]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The lawyers for former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates showed a hint as to why they'd like to quit his case Wednesday: They don't agree with Gates.

"Irreconcilable differences have developed with the client which make our effective representation of the client impossible," Gates' trial attorneys Shan Wu, Walter Mack and Annemarie McAvoy wrote in a filing submitted to federal court last Thursday, which was unsealed Wednesday.

The lawyers told the court they couldn't provide more details about their specific reasons because that could breach the privileged attorney-client relationship. They also said revealing more details could prejudice possible future jurors against Gates and are potentially "embarrassing."

The development Wednesday does little to clear up the mystery about Gates' fractured legal representation. Gates and the attorneys appeared in court Wednesday for about an hour.



Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/rick-gates-lawyers/index.html

[democratisphere]

1. Can't wait for the movie version of this entire gargantuan mess.

[Marie Marie]

19. It would have to be a series - over many months.

No way to fit this much crazy in a 2 hour movie.

[democratisphere]

21. No mini-series. A MEGA-series.

[UpInArms]

22. A MAGA series

Make America Gag Again

[Cosmocat]

25. Can you imagine Oliver Stone doing a series on this?

It would end up breaking the Simpson's record for episodes.

[genxlib]

2. I think that is legalese for "check bounced"

[bitterross]

3. I think it's legalese for "He's still listening to 45, not us."

Sounds like their client won't take their advice on matters and it is making it impossible to defend him.

Wouldn't be surprised if Gates is still holding out for a pardon from 45 so he's not compromising on anything.

[pnwmom]

4. I read an analysis by an attorney about this. I forget what the words were, but she said

they have different legalese for non-payment.

[genxlib]

6. I will take your word for it

My linguistic interpretation skill leans more to the "con-man bullshit" than to formal legalese

[pnwmom]

7. I found the tweets. Crossing my fingers she's right.

Link to tweet

[jberryhill]

26. Both of those tweets are a little silly

Taking the first one re: "I see no simultaneous request for appointment of a federal public defender" - that's just plain dumb. In order to qualify for a public defender, you have to show that you are pretty much unable to pay ANY lawyer. Gates has a particularly high priced firm, and big firm billing tactics are pretty impressive. Simply because you have a fee dispute or difficulty paying THIS lawyer, doesn't mean you qualify for a public defender. If Gates doesn't want to mortgage his house, and doesn't want to pay this firm, then, yes, the firm is going to ask to withdraw, but it doesn't mean he'll get a public defender.

Taking the second one re: "standard language used" is also silly. There is no "standard language" for withdrawing due to inability to perform a fee agreement. I've seen these motions in all shapes and sizes. The thing about attorney withdrawals is that they are discretionary with the court. Even if your client is not paying, the judge does not have to let you off the hook. In high profile cases, the judge is even less likely to let the attorneys off the hook. So, if an attorney believes there is a chance that the judge will take the "You chose to represent this guy, and I'm not letting you out" approach, then it behooves that attorney to suggest that the inability to pay is part of a larger picture of general rancor which may affect the attorney's ability to represent the client effectively.

[Sophia4]

14. It could be non-payment.

It could be that he is acting contrary to their advice.

It could be that somehow there is a conflict of interest or a conflict of interest has arisen between the client and the lawyer. Could be that the lawyers believe that they cannot represent the client due to a conflict between that representation and the representation for another of their clients.

It could be that the lawyers believe that their client is lying to them or forgot to tell them something important.

I may be wrong, but I don't think they have to be very explicit about the specific grounds for their request to withdraw from his reputation.

And maybe I really don't know what I am talking about.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I think it's legalese for "He wants us to lie to the court on his behalf."

In most cases lawyers have an ethical obligation to withdraw from representation if their client puts them in the position of having to lie to the court, present evidence they know to be false, or allow their client to lie.

[pnwmom]

8. Or it could be that they want him to put up a defense and he wants to take a plea. nt

[bench scientist]

11. No. You must do ask the client asks with respect to a plea.

Taking a plea or accepting a settlement is solely the clients' decision. They will, of course, advise him of the consequences and whether they would recommend advise him against such a move but can not take action that is directly in opposition to his decision.For example, if the client says I want to plead guilty, you can advise that them of the likely sentence he would face etc. but you could not enter a plea of not guilty against his wishes.

[bench scientist]

9. Is this what is referred to as a "noisy" withdrawal ?

My Professional Responsibility Professor used this term. I take the MPRE in March.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Yes, it's that sticky situation where the client has done something

that is likely to put the lawyer in the position of violating a disciplinary rule if he/she continues to represent the client. I think it's called a "noisy" withdrawal because when this happens there are some narrow exceptions that allow the client to reveal privileged client communications - in this case it sounds like the lawyers had to tell the court something, which will remain under seal, in order to explain why they are withdrawing. If it was just a dispute over fees that wouldn't be necessary.

Good luck on the MPRE.

[djg21]

16. Or it could be simply

That the relationship between Gates and his attorney has grown toxic for any number of reasons. This happens relatively frequently, especially when clients think they are smarter and know better than their attorneys. The Court will allow the attorneys to file a sealed motion to withdraw, ex parte, so the privilege won’t be vitiated. The judge typically asks the opposing or prosecuting attorney if there would be any objection, and the opposing/prosecuting attorney says “of course not” and sits back and watches.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Could be - but it could be that those "irreconcilable differences" involve

something that puts the lawyers in a situation where they are ethically obligated to withdraw. If it was just a personality conflict it probably would have been with just one of the lawyers and not all three of them. They also said the reason would be "embarrassing" for Gates. My supposition is that something sleazy, more than just personal differences, is behind it.

[jberryhill]

27. "irreconcilable differences" is frequently used...

...in the situation where the client is not performing under the fee agreement, and this puts the attorney and client in a contractual dispute.

Judges don't have to let an attorney out of a case simply because the client isn't paying. That's why a motion is required to ask the judge to let the attorney out. Accordingly, most firms will have the client enter a contract as to fees and to replenishment of retainer amounts. If the client does not maintain the retainer at the specified level, then the attorney and client are in a contractual dispute beyond simply "he's not paying". It helps to frame it that way, because some judges are not fond of attorneys who do not secure appropriate financial arrangements up front, and then look for a way out midstream.

[DetlefK]

28. Bingo.

[Corgigal]

10. They might want him to plea

because they legally think that is his best bet. He might not believe he's really going to jail.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. That wouldn't be a cause for withdrawal. The client makes the decision

whether to plead, not the lawyer. If he doesn't want to plead guilty but go to trial instead, that's up to him and not the lawyer. The lawyer can advise him to plead, but he doesn't have to do that. However, it might be that going to trial might involve a situation where he wants to lawyer to lie, or the lawyer knows he intends to give perjured testimony. In that case the lawyer is obligated to withdraw.

[leftynyc]

24. Even if he still has a lawyer?

We do know the lawyer he has left is known for arranging pleas. And the lying thing, can't a lawyer withdraw if he KNOWS his client is going to lie?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. A lawyer has to withdraw if he knows the client is going to lie.

[leftynyc]

30. And wouldn't that explain

their comment that the reasons for wanting to withdraw would embarrass their client?

[yallerdawg]

15. If you want to know what that means...

ask any of my ex-wives.

[LeonardShelby]

18. maybe

...Gates offered to pay them extra with some Russian money

[TeamPooka]

20. Lawyer talk for "client wants to lie on the stand." nt

[triron]

23. has this been posted in "General Discussion"?