Casey Anthony allegedly paid her lawyer with sex

[Blue_Tires]

Accused child-killer Casey Anthony paid her lawyer with sex, according to a report Tuesday.

A private investigator hired by Casey’s lawyer, Jose Baez, in her murder case claimed that he learned that Anthony was trading sex for legal representation after a TV show requested an interview with her that she didn’t want to do in 2008, according to the gossip website RadarOnline.

“[Baez] called the network saying they would have to take a raincheck, hung up the phone and said to Casey: ‘You now owe me three blowjobs,’ ” according to PI Dominic Casey, who Radar says gave the sworn testimony in January as part of a bankruptcy case.

The alleged shenanigans got worse as time went by because Anthony was broke, the private detective claims.

“The misconduct between Casey and Jose escalated,” the PI said, adding that he once “witnessed a naked Casey’’ run from Baez’s private chambers.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/24/casey-anthony-paid-her-lawyer-with-sex/

Do lawyers even accept that as payment??

[hack89]

1. How do you report that to the IRS? nt

[name not needed]

16. For business purposes, the deduction is 54 cents per inch.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. IRS isn't an issue but the state Bar Association sure is.

If there is any serious proof, there goes the license.

[Bucky]

34. well that would suck

heh

[Calista241]

2. I don't believe this for a second.

I mean, paying with sex for a day or twos worth of work maybe, but her lawyer spent the better part of a year or more working on this. Sex is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills.

[Oneironaut]

11. If you're a scumbag with no morals, you probably don't care.

Wonder if he's married? Gross!

[Bucky]

35. Maybe he took the case pro boner

[lame54]

3. So they both got off

[Blue_Tires]

4. Bravo, well done, you win!

[Egnever]

5. Cause that case wasn't already twisted enough.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I'm not an expert

But I think that is some sort of ethics violation.

[jberryhill]

8. Florida Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 4-8.4(i)

quoted in a reply below

[lame54]

18. by who? - the lawyer or the PI?

[jberryhill]

7. Do lawyers even accept that as payment??

Most state ethics codes prohibit screwing your client in that way.

I believe it was CA which first adopted the "no sex with your client" rule.

Primarily, these problems tended to arise in estate and family law matters, in which lawyers would romance emotionally-vulnerable divorcees or widows with an eye toward getting in on a share of the property at issue.

In general, romantic or sexual interests are viewed as presenting an obstacle to the provision of objective professional judgment in the matter at hand.

The Florida rule is that a lawyer shall not:

https://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/0B6C8E5CDCA464D685257172004B0FBD

(i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

If the sexual conduct commenced after the lawyer-client relationship was formed it shall be presumed that the sexual conduct exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship. A lawyer may rebut this presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual conduct did not exploit or adversely affect the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

The prohibition and presumption stated in this rule do not apply to a lawyer in the same firm as another lawyer representing the client if the lawyer involved in the sexual conduct does not personally provide legal services to the client and is screened from access to the file concerning the legal representation.

------

The upshot here is that partners in a law firm have to steer their romantically-interesting clients toward each other, in order to avoid a violation.

The presumption of impairment of the relationship is, as noted, a rebuttable one, but the burden is on the lawyer to show that there was no impairment of the representation.

Given that she was acquitted of the major counts of homicide and child abuse, and was only nailed on providing false information to law enforcement, one could argue that the results speak for themselves.

Did this "exploit or adversely affect the interests of the client"? That language seems to come directly from the divorce/estate context in which the sexual relationship is intended to weasel one's way into the property at issue or, for example, where your lawyer starts screwing your divorcing spouse and then starts sabotaging your own case.

[rladdi]

21. Anything goes in Florida.

[petronius]

26. Heh heh. You said "nailed"...

</Beavis> (Or is it Butthead?)

[BlueNoMatterWho]

9. This story is just hard to swallow

[Eleanors38]

12. Well, you'll have to face up to it!

[jberryhill]

14. We should reserve judgment until he appeals to a judge with a motion in his briefs

[BlueNoMatterWho]

15. That made me spit out my coffee.

I'll just have to be kept abreast of the situation.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Gives a whole new meaning to "on retainer"

[davidn3600]

10. Baez says he's going to sue that investigator

In a statement to PEOPLE, Baez disputes all Dominic Casey's allegations. "I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony," he writes. "I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever."

"I have always conducted my practice consistent with the high ethical standards required of members of the Florida Bar," he continues. "My representation of Ms. Anthony was no exception."

"Legal action is forthcoming," Baez writes.

http://www.people.com/article/jose-baez-hits-back-dominic-casey-allegations-sexual-relationship-with-casey-anthony?xid=rss-topheadlines

[rladdi]

20. But Jose Baez knew that Casey murdered Anthony all during the trial. He really wanted to place the

blame of the man that found the body, He spent lots of funds in doing that. But Jose charges never took life. Jose should be in Prison.

[davidn3600]

22. His job was to defend his client

Whether he thinks she was guilty or not is irrelevant. The state has the burden of proof, not the defense.

[lancer78]

36. The state

should not have relied solely on so much circumstantial evidence. I bet the harpy (Nancy Grace) will go nuts over this.

[Chan790]

39. Whatever your opinion of Nancy Grace...

and I share what I perceive your opinion to be...please don't use misogynistic language like "harpy."

Thank you.

[Yavin4]

13. Wouldn't be the first case of a lawyer screwing his/her client. n/t

[Iggo]

17. Yeah. Sure.

[rladdi]

19. But the latest knowledge of Jose knowing she kill Anthony is the worst. That is being reported

today. With Jose knowing that Anthony was killed by Casey, he was trying to make the case against the individual that found the body. Jose hired experts to make a murder case against the man who found the body. Jose should be in Prison along with Casey.

[jberryhill]

23. Why should he be in prison?

It's the state's burden to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state had every opportunity and virtually unlimited resources to devote to obtaining a conviction. They were unable to persuade a jury that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

A lawyer is the ONLY person whose services are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. Why do you think it may have been important to guarantee that right to persons accused of a crime.

Do you believe that lawyers should refuse to provide legal defense services to people who are guilty of crimes?

[prayin4rain]

25. In Texas, knowledge of guilt would most likely prohibit

an attorney from presenting a defense based upon a theory that somebody else did it.

[jberryhill]

29. This thing played out differently in the media and the court

Did he affirmatively argue in court that someone else did it? Or did he elicit statements from witnesses to the effect that it could be someone else?

I'll defer to your knowledge of Texas, but let me run this one by you.

Your client is charged with vehicular homicide. You know your client did it. The state can prove it was his car. There are five other authorized drivers of that car (it's a family car). The state has to show your client was behind the wheel and they have nothing but inferences. Are you suggesting it would be improper to draw out that four other people regularly drive that car?

I'm inclined to think it would be improper not to follow that line, since it goes to the sufficiency of the evidence the state has.

[prayin4rain]

44. Depending on how it was argued, I think it would be

acceptable to present evidence that four other people drove the car if it was to poke holes in the State's evidence that your client was driving the car. But an attorney would need to stop short of arguing that it could have been one of those four other people.

[jberryhill]

47. That's a very subjective distinction

I think it is difficult to conceptually super at those two things.

If you are going to lead a horse to water, I believe the point is to get that horse to take a sip or two, regardless of how you go about it.

[prayin4rain]

49. As long as the sip is that the State didn't prove their case,

it's fine.

Arguing, "....you heard evidence that four other people used the car. The State was unable to put on any evidence that conclusively put Client in the car on the day of the accident."

vs

"You heard evidence that John, who also has red hair, like Client, and who is also six feet tall, used the car on Wednesday. John was unable to account for his time from 12-2 on the day of the accident. But, John's father is a police officer, so John was never investigated....."

If an attorney knew Client was guilty, one of those arguments would probably be unethical and one would probably be OK.
I think ethical considerations are often subtle and subjective. But, I think it's important for attorneys to really try their best to be ethical.

[Chan790]

40. You are aware that his job is to defend his client, right?

A legitimately-large portion of that is to present an alternative theory of the crime...there is no ethical or statutory requirement that you believe your own theory of the crime that you are presenting to the jury on your client's behalf.

I'd argue that it would actually be a severe disadvantage to believe your own theory entirely...it makes you blind to the weaknesses of your theory of the crime and does a disservice to the client.

[malaise]

28. She was found not guilty

Of what is she still accused?

Why should I care if she and her lawyer agreed to the terms.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. "She was found not guilty"

Pfft. So was George Zimmerman.

[malaise]

33. She is not accused of anything

That is bullshit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. They are both scum

Why is anyone surprised?

[Gomez163]

32. I have never accepted a blow job as payment for legal fees.

That would be against the law as soliciting prostitution.

Lawyers are also prohibited from having sex with their clients.

[lancer78]

37. Only if it adversely affects the client

according to Florida Law.

[Gomez163]

38. Its taking advantage of a desperate client.

That man is a pig.

[Chan790]

41. Absolutely.

As far as I know, being a pig is not a crime or grounds for disbarment though. Certainly it can be a factor in actions that are criminal or grounds to be disbarred.

[lancer78]

42. Can you prove that?

What if she initiated the deal? Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession. I used to know an escort that makes around $1,000 an hour.

[Gomez163]

45. You say no. You do the case for free. This is awful.

[jberryhill]

46. "This" is a collection of dramatic allegations

[jberryhill]

48. But you take them for costs? For shame.

(Dear jury: this is a legal joke. Lawyers are careful to distinguish between costs and fees as components of compensable or billable categories. This is a parody of how lawyers will attempt to assume admission by exclusion.)

[Baitball Blogger]

43. Florida's bartering system?

[lancer78]

50. You know why everyone seems

upset by this? I know why. After Casey was acquitted, a lot of America thought they could take comfort in that her legal fees would cause her to be destitute her entire life "At least she won't be able to own anything ever again, all her money she will ever earn goes to her lawyers".

Now if this story is true, she has managed to get out of that situation as well, and that just pisses people off. It is like Zimmerman selling his gun for $250,000.

[deathrind]

51. The puns in this

...thread are spectacular.

As for the OP itself. Unless and until any hard evidence comes to light I will hold off making any premature speculations on the allegations at hand...

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. She got away with murder. Small price to pay for that kind of representation. n/t