Opinion ID: 2499595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Second In Camera Proceeding

Text: On November 9, 2005, following a recess during the prosecution's casein-chief, the court held another in camera proceeding, again without Ragusa. It is unclear from the record who requested this hearing. Respondent began the proceeding by stating that a most fortuitous situation happened that under the guise of calling back to talk to us about a question, a sequestration potential violation, that gave us an opportunity to come into chambers. . . . [15] Respondent also revealed that during the recess he and Grossman were subjected to perhaps the most vicious attack I've ever had to get from a client saying that I'm not fighting for her. And that I don'tif I can, not to be rude, but to quote her, don't give a sh[ ], don't give a f[  ] and putting on a patsy defense. [16] Respondent wanted to make a record, because, as [he] anticipated prior to this trial, [Ragusa] seems to be trying to make us a target. . . . [17] He further stated, I just thought, wow, this [sequestration problem] is fantastic because now we can go back and just cool our jets and make a record of what we perceive to be going on. [18] During the in camera proceeding, Grossman revealed that Ragusa was expressing that she may not want us continuing to represent her. [19] The court asked the attorneys whether Ragusa wanted Respondent and Grossman to withdraw from representation and whether Ragusa wanted them to discontinue the defense now or in a future case. [20] Grossman responded that he believed she was referring to this case. [21] Finally, Respondent stated that Rob and I are certainly not going to quit. We're not going to let her fire us, if that ever were to come. [22] The court ended the hearing, instructed Respondent and Grossman to notify it if a Schultheis hearing needed to be conducted, and resumed the trial. [23] Respondent admits that immediately prior to the second in camera proceeding he and Grossman had developed a conflict of interest with Ragusa and that he should have more clearly indicated to the judge the nature of that conflict. Respondent believes that had he done so, the judge could have made an appropriate ruling regarding the conflict. Respondent noted that, at the time, he felt that he had a duty of candor to the court to make a record regarding the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Respondent stated that in hindsight, he should have discussed the proceeding with Ragusa and it was error not to bring her back into chambers. He admitted that he revealed client confidences during these proceedings and that he realizes now he had a duty to Ragusa to have her present, to notify the court that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and to discontinue the representation.