A motion to disqualify Demetrius Fannick from representing Harlow Cuadra makes legal sense only if it can be established that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes. However, as we and Demetrius Fannick have already pointed out, even if there is a conflict of interest with Fannick representing Cuadra, Joseph Kerekes can waive objections to Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra. It can be argued that Luzerne County Prosecutors established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes more so than Demetrius Fannick did.

The Infamous KPMG Tax Case in New York, which we have cited before in relation to Bryan Kocis’ Lawyers having a conflict of interest representing Harlow Cuadra, was an instance in which The US Attorney asked the Court to investigate whether an attorney who represented one defendant had a conflict of interest representing another defendant.

THE KEY POINT WITH THIS CONFLICT OF COUNSEL ISSUE is that an attorney has a “continuing obligation” to his client, even when the client is a former client.

Luzerne County Prosecutors moving to disqualify Demetrius Fannick as Harlow Cuadra’s lawyer makes no legal sense if there was no attorney client relationship between Fannick and Joseph Kerekes.

YES, Fannick apparently met with Joseph Kerekes several times. However, the fact that Fannick met with Kerekes when Kerekes had lawyers representing him does not on its face establish that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes.

Even if Fannick gave Kerekes legal advice, Kerekes was represented by counsel when Fannick met with Kerekes. The simple fact that Kerekes had lawyers who had filed an appearance on his behalf sorta kinda HARMS the argument that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with a Kerekes (a guy who already had about four lawyers representing him when Fannick met with him).

It is not even clear to us if Luzerne County Prosecutors were smart enough to actually argue that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes. HOWEVER,

The only way The Court could claim that there could potentially be a conflict of interest with Fannick representing Cuadra IS if The Court finds that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with Kerekes.

Unless Fannick’s TALKS with Kerekes were taped, I don’t see how the fuck anyone can even begin to claim that Fannick established an attorney client relationship with a guy who was already represented by counsel.

IT MIGHT ALSO BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE: that the US Attorney in the KPMG case asked The Court to look into if there might be a conflict of interest with an Attorney who had an attorney client relationship with one defendant representing another defendant. The US Attorney DID NOT file a motion on behalf of the defendant (as Luzerne County Prosecutors filed a motion ON BEHALF of Kerekes). AGAIN,

Luzerne County Prosecutors have no standing to file motions on behalf of Joseph Kerekes. The fact that Luzerne County Prosecutors DID file some idiot fucking motion ON BEHALF of Joseph Kerekes gives weight to the argument that Luzerne County Prosecutors have established an attorney client relationship with Joseph Kerekes.

Judge Kaplan delayed the trial of three former KPMGers and a one-time Sidley Austin lawyer today after disqualifying a defense lawyer in the case. In an order Thursday, Judge Kaplan DQed Steven Bauer, lead counsel for ex-KPMG senior tax manager John Larson, after several closed hearings on potential conflicts of interest. Opening statements were scheduled to begin Tuesday. (Click here and here for Law Blog Background on the much-diminished case.)

Last month, the feds asked the judge to explore potential conflicts of interest by Bauer and David Scheper, a lawyer for ex-KPMGer Robert Pfaff, as a result of a joint defense agreement they may have reached with David Amir Makov, who is now a cooperating witness in the case and is expected to testify in the trial. The feds then asked the judge to preclude Bauer from cross-examining Makov based on evidence that he had acted as counsel to Makov in the early stages of the investigation. “A lawyer cannot attack his former client through cross-examination or argument to the jury” because of his or her “duty of continuing loyalty” to that former client, prosecutors said. In filings with the court, Larson, Pfaff and Bauer denied the government’s assertions; Bauer didn’t return a call for comment WSJ