“Attorney conflicts, delays — seeking justice for Dan Markel continues” —

• “The Godfather’s Tom Hagen repped Vito and Michael Corleone; Maurice Levy, in The Wire, took on the causes of multiple members of the Barksdale crime family; Mob City’s Sid Kleinman served as defense for Bugsy Siegel and Mickey Cohen as well as other members of their crime syndicate; and of course in The Sorpanos, multiple lawyers including Neil Mink, Harold Melvoin, and Robert Baccalieri, represented the (often conflicting) interests of numerous family members.”
• “On TV, it may be easier to cast one lawyer for all members of a crime family across episodes to build continuity and allow fans to benefit from familiar characters. But in real life, it just doesn’t happen. And shouldn’t.”
• “Unless you’re Florida defense attorney Daniel Rashbaum, who took up the flag, collected the fees – and has now fallen on that predictable sword – in his representation of multiple members of a family accused (and in one case convicted) of murdering FSU law professor Dan Markel.”
• “Markel was killed in July 2014 by hitmen Sigfredo Garcia, sentenced to life, and Luis Rivera, who pled and cooperated, sharing how the two were hired to kill Markel by members of his ex-wife Wendi Adelson’s family. Wendi has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator. Her brother, Charlie Adelson, was convicted in November 2023, and now her mother, Donna Adelson, awaits trial. The hitmen were linked to the Adelson family through Katherine Magbanua, Charlie’s then-girlfriend and the mother of Garcia’s children.”
• “Following a sting operation and the arrests of the hitmen in 2016, Rashbaum entered the scene first as Donna’s lawyer. Charlie hired David Oscar Markus (who successfully defended former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum and members of the Cali Cartel).”
• “But shortly after Charlie’s arrest in April 2022, Markus withdrew as his counsel, and Rashbaum stepped in to take his place. Donna and her husband Harvey found a new attorney to speak for them as needed – at least on paper. In reality, the connection between Donna and Rashbaum only grew stronger during Charlie’s incarceration. Publicly released jail calls suggest extensive communication between Donna and Rashbaum through this time, with Donna using the lawyer for personal counsel and serving as an intermediary between the mother and son on Rashbaum’s secure, unrecorded jail line.”
• “But her plans weren’t foolproof, despite Donna’s best efforts to avoid incriminating content on monitored lines. On one recorded call – captured a few days after Charlie’s conviction – Donna can be overheard speaking after she thought the call had dropped. She and they were discussing their plans to flee to a non-extradition country and hoping to avoid one possibility Rashbaum warned of – that while they may get out in time, they could get stopped at the airport. That’s precisely what happened, too.”
• “The entire growing universe of legal experts covering Markel’s murder online gave a collective gasp when Rashbaum reentered as Donna’s counsel. Here’s why: multiple layers of conflict are inherent when one lawyer tries to represent various members of the same family or criminal syndicate, even if sequentially. Doing so presents significant ethical, legal, and practical challenges.”
• “Lawyers are bound by ethical obligations to zealously represent the best interests of their clients. When a lawyer represents multiple members of the same family or conspiracy, their loyalty can become divided. For example, one family member might cooperate with law enforcement, while another might prefer to fight the charges in court. The lawyer’s duty to both clients become compromised if those strategies conflict. Representing both clients would likely lead to a situation where the interests of one client are directly at odds with the others.”
• “All of this was explained to Donna Adelson by Judge Stephen Everett when she first re-retained Rashbaum as her “new-again” attorney. Donna acknowledged the conflict and waived it. Repeatedly. So, too, did Charlie Adelson – or so the court was led to believe.”
• “Rashbaum insists that Charlie had given Rashbaum his verbal waiver, permitting his sort-of-former lawyer to represent his mother in her trial. And that remained the case until today – Sept. 17, the first day of what would have been jury selection in Donna’s trial. More than 100 prospective jurors were already in the courthouse when it was revealed that Charlie decided to revoke his waiver, permitting Rashbaum to represent his mother.”
• “Worse, Rashbaum didn’t even have such a waiver in writing.”
• “‘Rashbaum’s insistence on representing both Donna and Charlie despite a clear conflict of interest and against common sense has only increased taxpayer cost in prosecuting the case and delayed, once again, justice for Dan Markel, his family, his loved ones, and members of the public who patiently wait for full justice to be served,’ said Tamara Demko, an attorney who serves as a co-manager of Justice for Dan, Inc.”
• “For his part, Rashbaum may have some new concerns on his mind. ‘I’m not worried about the Constitution,’ he was overheard saying on a live mic before one of Tuesday’s conflict hearings. ‘I’m worried for me now, with the Bar,’ it sounds like he says.”

“NJ Health System Repeats Call For Proskauer DQ” —

• “New Jersey health network CarePoint Health Management Associates LLC has redoubled its call for a New Jersey federal judge to disqualify Proskauer Rose LLP from representing competitor RWJBarnabas Health Inc. amid antitrust claims brought by CarePoint, arguing CarePoint’s prior representation by Proskauer is substantially related to the case.”
• “CarePoint acknowledges the two sides previously agreed Proskauer could represent RWJBarnabas Health, but CarePoint’s Tuesday reply in support of its motion to disqualify counsel argues Proskauer misconstrued or misunderstood what knowledge it had and how that knowledge would be used.”
• “‘At the start of this litigation, Proskauer antitrust counsel, on behalf of Proskauer and Barnabas, definitively represented to CarePoint counsel that this antitrust matter is not related in the slightest to Proskauer’s prior representation of CarePoint,’ CarePoint says in the reply brief. ‘Proskauer did not reveal that it would make information at the heart of its prior confidential representation of CarePoint — decisions regarding related-party payments — a central part of Barnabas’s litigation strategy two years later.'”
• “While a prior Proskauer counsel now declares that even he initially believed that the Proskauer’s past representation of RWJBarnabas Health was not related to this antitrust matter, CarePoint said, information that came to light amid discovery proved that understanding was unfounded. Now, CarePoint asserts, Proskauer has shifted gears, claiming both sides should have known all along.”
• “‘Proskauer now claims that CarePoint knew or should have known all along what Proskauer claims it did not know — that Proskauer was turning against its former client on substantially-related matters,’ the brief states.”
• “CarePoint sued RWJBarnabas in September 2022, accusing the rival health system of conspiring to monopolize the acute care market in Hudson County, New Jersey. According to the suit, RWJBarnabas opened a stand-alone emergency department near a CarePoint hospital in an attempt to siphon patients and doctors from the competitor’s facilities and eventually thwart a sale of the hospital system.”
• “When RWJBarnabas hired Proskauer, the two sides agreed to the representation, with Proskauer instituting a ‘screen’ out of what the firm later called an abundance of caution. The firm had previously represented CarePoint in a matter related to COVID-19 relief funds and the CARES Act.”
• “‘When Proskauer told CarePoint’s counsel that it intended to enter its appearance in the case, CarePoint readily consented,’ RWJBarnabas said in its opposition brief Aug. 20. ‘Fast forward two years, and CarePoint has had a change of heart. Proskauer, it says, has been too aggressive in pursuing discovery into the funds CarePoint funneled to its founders at the expense of its patients. That discovery, it believes, vitiates its prior consent and warrants disqualification. It does not.'”
• “Despite calling for Proskauer to step aside based on new information, RWJBarnabas asserted, ‘CarePoint does not identify a single relevant fact it was unaware of when it provided consent,’ and ‘does not deny that it had full knowledge of the scope of the prior representation.'”
• “In its Tuesday reply, CarePoint says Proskauer’s strategy has had the effect of making its prior representation of CarePoint relevant to the RWJBarnabas antitrust matter, as the firm has called into question payments made to CarePoint’s founders.”
• “‘Proskauer can mislabel and minimize its prior representation as limited ‘CARES Act advice,’ but it is beyond dispute that Proskauer received tens-of-thousands of dollars to provide advice to CarePoint regarding related-party payments and CarePoint’s finances,’ CarePoint’s Tuesday brief states. ‘Proskauer has rendered the prior representation substantially related to this case by making Barnabas’s case all about related-party payments rather than antitrust.'”