Lawyer who talked to Tressel was a former OSU Walk-on
The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that the lawyer who contacted Tressel was former-OSU walk-on Chris Cicero, whose time at OSU overlapped with Tressl's time as an assistant at OSU. Cicero, apparently, has a history of unethical conduct, which is not remotely surprising as he probably should not have been talking to Tressel in the first place.
There are a lot of ways to interpret this information. But even if we take Tressel's word that his concern was for maintaining confidentiality, it appears that Tressel chose to keep quiet to protect his former player at the expense of the institution and with clear disregard for the rules. Now, while this is in some way understandable from a personal standpoint, it is completely indfensible from a professional one.
that attorney will have major problems with the Ohio Bar Association.
I'm curious; what part of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct do you think he violated?
I'm not doubting that a rule may have been violated. And it would not be hard, with an attorney's name, to figure out who he represented, and if he violated a client's confidence.
But really, what it seems that he revealed was information that was already being developed by the U.S. Marshalls' office in connection with the tax case, and a subsequently-related FBI investigation. He told Tressel what the authorities were likely to (and probably did) publish in a charging document.
I honestly don't know; but is it so clear that an ethical violation occurred?
Yes, very obvious. If he told Tressel anything he heard in a client situation, he was legally barred from sharing it with anyone without the clients consent. The punishments are also very severe for lawyers who do this; as in, bye-bye law license.
I've been practicing law since 1984.
Ha. I feel dumb. Sorry about that.
It's OK sweetie, we still love you.
Good to know. I just honestly think this is a clear-cut case, as long as he got his information from his position as a defense attorney. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of attorney-client is that it's pretty black and white for cases like this. Some of the other lawyer posters were backing that last night as well.
I trust all the MGoLawyers on this one too. There's just too much insider information, shadiness, and open disdain for the rules for there not to be something terribly rotten in the state of Ohio.
of course it's rotten; trust me, i escaped!
Your avatar looks like Tom Brady.
Thanks, I needed that. He doesn't have the Michigan sweater on though.
I had no idea you were an attorney. I like you more now.
... I'd see these two sentences next to one another.
"I had no idea you were an attorney. I like you more now."
if I was a practicing attorney on the other end of litigation and went up against Section 1, I'd admit Free Press articles tangentially related to the case as Evidence that the court should consider to be Clear-cut Proof and watch the Explosion. Rince, Lather, Repeat.
"Your honor, in order to provide the jury a clear-cut understanding of what moral activities entail and show my client to not be a murderer, I would like to introduce a piece by Mr. Michael Rosenberg..."
You evil, evil man.
I went digging around, and from the database at Cornell Law, they claim almost no differences between Ohio Attorney-Client Privilege and the ABA Model Rule 1.6.
I'm sure you know the exceptions better than I do from a short reading, but I can't find one that fits this case.
The guy was in his office, presumably as a client or seeking to become a client, and Cicero divulged information learned from that meeting to Tressel while claiming it was confidential. That's why I thought (and think) that it's a pretty clear that this was unethical.
But he's said the guy was in his law office and that he asked for legal opinions based on this evidence that he gave him (that Cicero said was given confidentially).
Maybe it takes more to lock in the privilege, but I don't know what else it could take.
It certainly seems that way to me. I just reread so as to not come off as a complete idiot if I had been mistaken, but from everything I read in the emails it sounds like Rife was in his office seeking legal advice on the plea bargain and sharing evidence.
I started out just asking the basic question(s). Disbarment (suspension, other discipline) is a pretty serious matter, and I'd just like to have all the facts first.
Another matter -- to what end did any breach of confidence go? In other words, while no breach of a privilege is acceptable, was the client to whom the privilege was owed adversely affected? Again it is only a question on my part. But this appears to be a case in which the attorney didn't intend to subvert his client's interest (although the language might have been sort of choice, if indeed he was counsel for the "definite drug dealer") and probably didn't actually subvert his interest. (Although it would be a WHOLE different matter if the emails were admitted as evidence in any drug trial... that would be a tutorial on hearsay, however.)
I got excited and said those things, just like I was hoping they'd fire Tressel with cause. It feels good to say that the worst things should happen to shady characters, which it sounds to me like this guy is.
As soon as I read that one of the factors determining the ethical nature of his action was damage, I knew I would rightly get hammered for saying he deserves the worst. You're right that Rife probably didn't incur any significant damage as a result of Cicero sending this to Tressel; or, at least, I can't think of any. The only thing remaining is that he is shady, and unless it comes out that Rife was a personal friend that pissed him off in some way, I'll continue to believe that Cicero is shady.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:38 AM ^
This should be the basis for an MPRE fact-pattern.
Then why did you ask. It is quite obvious to even the stupid people. Oh, I get it, to be a dick. Good thing you have been chasing ambulances since 1984, and not doing real law. What a prick. What part of telling a person not associated with a case facts about the case is difficult to understand? Man you law types are pretty smart. No wonder why I have negative points, can't tolerate assholes like you.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^
Having recently survived the MPRE, I can say none of the ethics rule are simple enough they aren't worth checking with the rules and/or community of people where someone else might have the time to look it up. I don't know what "real law" you are referring to, but i've learned to instantly dislike people who use "ambulance chaser" outside of clever jokes.
Then I am puzzled as to why you do not see a problem. I think the emails showed that he relayed some info or statements to Tressel after meeting with his client. While I understand we are talking about Ohio, I can't imagine that's not in violation of an ethical rule.
March 10th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
this is something 80% of people are not realizing/reading
he NEVER says he's involved in the investigation and likely wasn't. further, he likely does not know ANYONE involved. the first 4 sentences clearly show he heard this from POLICE FRIENDS. information was leaked out to him by them. there is zero attorney client issues in this. he used his resources of being familiar with cops to leak info to his favorite coach.
when you realize this (which it took me a while to), you realize just how obvious it is that Tressel's story was created retroactively. because he is completely outside of the investigation, there would be zero need for confidentiality, etc.
I'm still not getting that out of this story at all. All it says is that he's a lawyer who's been in some trouble. It didn't even touch how he acquired the information.
"A lot of my friends are in law enforcement. The Federal Government raided the house of _____ yesterday. His name is Edward "Eddie" Rife."
Why would he include the fact he has friends in law enforcement if he wasn't using them as the source of his info? He reveals extensive details about what they capture, which would likely be what the police would be notified of. If he was an attorney involved in the process, his law enforcement friends wouldn't be relevant. It'd be "I'm involved in a case" etc.
He also claims the defendant in the case was in his office and divulged confidential information in the next email.
"I had Eddie Rife in my office for an hour and a half last night"
and the next line:
"What I tell you is confidential."
He also said that Eddie Rife asked his opinion on accepting a plea bargain. He most definitely was (at least in some capacity) acting as counsel to Rife.
even in the most vague manner until two weeks later. first email, that implies ZERO need for confidentiality, took place on April 2. why was no action taken?
I had never noticed the time discrepancy. to me that implies phone/in person contact and that emails were lazy routes used mildly.
Tressel should have taken action, but at some point giving advice on plea deals and over several sessions has to be considered an attorney-client relationship, right?
that MAYBE was an excuse 2 weeks after the original email. the original email is completely actionable in full. no reason he couldn't. at all. rumor? send it anyways and see where things turn out. the priviledged info ends up being nothing more than sentencing possibilities - he's just a shitty friend until that point by ratting out what his cop friends told him. re-read the first email and explain why he couldn't report that. not until the 15th or so does the lawyer tread into the grey.
If you're talking about Tressel reporting it, he should have. If you're talking about Cicero, then it should be fine. Why couldn't he recount a story? What I'm saying is that Rife went into Cicero's office seeking legal advice, which is presumably how Cicero gained this information that he shared with Tressel. From my understanding, that is highly unethical.
It's not just the sentencing though. Rife is the one who told him about the money distributed to players, the cops only told him that Rife had the memorabilia in his possession.
is Tressel's timeline is fine from email 2 on. email 1 casts it completely in the shitter.
Timeline:
Cicero finds out from cops about Rife's involvement with players.
Cicero emails Tressel.
Tressel emails Cicero.
????
Rife visits Cicero and gives more info on stuff
Cicero emails Tressel
Tressel emails Cicero
?????
Rife visits Cicero and estsablishes concrete privilege asking about sentencing advice
Cicero emails Tressel
I am totally in agreement that Tressel is a liar, and has been exposed as such by anyone who can read, or hear him speak.
March 10th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
you are missing what he is trying to say. You were arguing that what the Lawyer did was a breach of confidentiality which it may have been at some point, but not initially. He is saying that from the emails, it doesn't appear to have become an attorney-client relationship until after the initial email.
His main point was Tressel can not use the "confidential" excuse because when he first received this information (April 2nd) nothing was confidential information that was attained in an attorney-client relationship. It was information that the Lawyer attained as a result of having friends in law enforcement who had loose lips.
Sometime after that first email the guy seems to have become a client by asking for legal advise, but that was long after the first email when Tressel was told of the issue with his players. This is why GeauxBlue is saying he could have taken action right away without any issue surrounding confidentiality.
That is what I am getting from your conversation anyway.
March 10th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^
My conversation with Geaux here was also taking place down the thread at the same time. Yes, I think Tressel is full of shit with his excuses, he could have said anything in the emails and not been in trouble. What I was saying is that after the second email, this guy seems to have entered into a client relationship with this laywer and the lawyer shouldn't have disclosed the rest of it: the stuff he gained from those talks.
Tressel can do whatever, it's not his ass on the line with the Ohio Bar.
to disciplining the players and ensuring this did not happen again. He could have sent someone to the tatoo shop and inquired about the memorabilia on display. He could of confronted the players with this information, as well as spoke to the team about a significant violation of NCAA rules. The players could have been disciplined under the ambiguous 'violation of team rules'. From the looks of it he did nothing, which doesn't support his side of the story, his defense of 'protecting' the players, and to me is quite damning.
they claimed they couldn't suspend a player because people would ask too many questions...
he couldn't suspend them 3 games each to start the season, or spread out, for a violation of team rules he "wouldn't get into"? if the press figures out it's for the autographs, then guess what tress - it wasn't too privileged for people to find out now was it?
of course, we're arguing rational hypotheses for an absolutely horrible lie everyone can see through.
The best explanation I've heard for Tressel's ridiculously stupid lies was on Jim Rome today. I don't know who the guest was, I don't watch often (it was a black guy with a really fast voice if that means anything to anyone) but he said, "It's a product of him always talking to people who are dumber than he is."
I thought that was about the perfect explanation for why he would say something so dumb and hope to get away with it.
Umm
he says that Rife came into his office to ask his opinion
after the first warning of illegal activity that had more than enough basis to begin investigating/alerting people
thats true. but you said:
"this is something 80% of people are not realizing/reading
he NEVER says he's involved in the investigation and likely wasn't. further, he likely does not know ANYONE involved. "
that is incorrect
my fault for not being explicit. i was focusing on the point of discovery for tressel. this guy apparently shared the sentiments i was trying to express, albeit more successfully and without me having read it first.
communications. Information learned while working a case that did not come from a communication from one's client may generally be disclosed absent some sort of protective order or gag order.
It is a huge leap at this stage to accuse this attorney of wrongdoing.