#Zarrab Judge allows Mukasey & Giuliani to act as counsel but finds both have “potential” conflicts of interests.

201700601 (259) Curcio Decision and Order

DECISION AND ORDER as to (15-Cr-867-1) Reza Zarrab. Having reviewed the (comprehensive) record herein including, without limitation, the Government submissions, dated March 27, 2017, March 31, 2017, April 18, 2017, April 28, 2017, May 22, 2017; the Defense submissions, dated March 27, 2017, March 30, 2017, March 31, 2017, April 14, 2017, April 18, 2017, April 27, 2017, May 22, 2017; Rudolph Giuliani’s affidavits, dated April 14, 2017, May 4, 2017, and May 22, 2017; Michael B. Mukasey’s affidavits, dated April 13, 2017, May 3, 3017, and May 19, 2017; Laurence Levy’s affidavit, dated April 14, 2017; Robert Mangas’ affidavit, dated April 14, 2017; Registration Statements filed by Greenberg Traurig LLP with the United States Department of Justice (for 2014-2016); the Court’s earlier Curcio Decision and Order, dated February 15, 2017; and having conducted numerous conferences and hearings and heard oral argument by all counsel on April 4, 2017, April 13, 2017, April 24, 2017, May 2, 2017, May 11, 2017, and May 25, 2017, the Court finds as follows: 1- Mr. Mukasey appears to have a potential conflict of interest as a result of his firm’s (Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) representation of eight “victim banks” (i.e., Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC, Standard Chartered, UBS and Wells Fargo); 2- Mr. Giuliani appears to have potential conflicts of interest as a result of his firm’s (Greenberg Traurig LLP) representation of the same eight victim banks and also as a result of Greenberg Traurig’s serving as an “agent” of the Republic of Turkey;…[See this Decision And Order]… 9- In reaching its conclusions, the Court has also taken into consideration the importance of maintaining the integrity of these proceedings as the case heads toward trial on October 30, 2017. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988) (“Federal courts have an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.”); and United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir. 1982) (“In determining whether the right of the accused to counsel of his choosing should be honored in a particular case, we must balance the defendant’s constitutional right against the need to preserve the highest ethical standards of professional responsibility.”) 10- These conflict situations must continue to be closely monitored, principally by the Defense. Counsel are directed promptly to advise the Court of any change of circumstances which may result in actual conflict or which may exacerbate potential conflict(s) of interest. See Decision and Order, dated February 15, 2017 at 10 (“At the same time, these conflict matters must be closely monitored, principally by the Defense. Counsel are directed promptly to advise the Court of any change of circumstances which may result in actual or which may exacerbate potential conflict(s) of interest.”). (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/1/2017)(bw)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s