Staff Blog
What’s all this Sprague business about? How smart of you to ask.
 |
| Philly Mag |
Confused about all this haggling over Dick Sprague? Here’s a quick and chronological primer, finishing with explanations of two documents filed on Tuesday. Also, at the end, some thoughts on this whole line of debate.
See, the prosecutors are very upset that, as they allege in the indictment, Fumo ordered the destruction of possibly incriminating e-mails and the unholy cleansing of Blackberrys once he realized the feds were on his trail. That’s what those obstruction of justice charges are about.
And in the beginning of this trial, Fumo retained Dick Sprague, his mentor who also happens to be one of the most high powered (and, as this good Philebrity post suggests, Yoda-like) attorneys in all legaldom.
But, as this Inquirer story and this Philly Mag story will explain, the longtime relationship between the two soon hit the rocks.
Once Fumo replaced one high-powered attorney with another, he was back on the hook for those vanishing e-mails. And so this past Friday he said that his old lawyer, Yoda Sprague, and another lawyer who testified to the grand jury, Robert Scandone, told him that it was just fine to destroy the e-mails before he was indicted.
That led the prosecutors to legally demand all the documents between Fumo and Sprague on Saturday. The defense replied that the prosecutors should only get a limited amount of documents. And so the government went on the all-out offensive on Tuesday, saying in Day 2, document #1:
“The government finds itself in an absurd situation, which is entirely of the defendant’s making.”
… and later …
In part, we are impressed by the fact that the advice Fumo claims to have recieved is so patently wrong under all pertinent obstruction statutes that no experienced counsel would give it.
Funny, because that’s exactly what Sprague said in 2007, when he said that Fumo got that advice from another lawyer (Scandone), not him.
And even then, with Fumo saying he heard it from Sprague, and Sprague saying he didn’t say it, the defense yesterday wrote that the government should just be happy with whatever they get because all the other documents are under the attorney-client privilege law.
How can they claim attorney-client privilege when the attorney claimed, in the past, to have not given his client legal advice? Got me. (For now. I’m seeking legal advice for an answer.)
This debate may also say something about the government’s case as well (Even though they have a bunch of legalspeak justifications for getting all the documents, let’s be honest: the more documents, the better for them). Are they concerned about the impact their two flipped witnesses, former Fumo computer techs Leonard Luchko and Mark Eister, will have on the jury when they testify? Are they seeking insurance?
Summation: Most of this is legal hooey, and the judge should step in and wrap this up before it becomes any more of an absurd dance than it already is. Judge Yohn pretty much has to decide how valuable the entirety of Sprague’s document trail would be to the case, and whether or not it would make the trial more or less fair to all parties concerned.
—
Also on Tuesday in legal memo-land…
This is a much smaller legal battle, but gives us insight into one of the defense’s tactics. There are a bunch of people, called character witnesses, who will attempt to make the jury forget about all the allegations against Fumo by testifying that he’s a good guy.
The defense wants all those witnesses to sit in the courtroom at the same time, providing a kind of moral support for the beleaguered Fumo.
Only problem is, that bucks eons of legal practice. The prosecutors said as much in another briefing on Tuesday.
The theory is that if all the character witnesses are in the room while the others are testifying, they’ll get ideas about what to say that works well against the prosecutors.
It’s a nice thought, but everyone expects the judge to toss this. After all, there’s more memo-arguing to be done about Dick Sprague, anyway.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am
[...] GuyEveryone Loves the Eagles, nobody cares about the Phillies … why?Fumogation : Vince Fumo TrialWhat’s all this Sprague business about? How smart of you to ask.Day 2: Juror arithmetic, and what if the boss won’t pay?in all, 16 possible jurors were moved to the [...]
September 11th, 2008 at 12:38 am
{How can they claim attorney-client privilege when the attorney claimed, in the past, to have not given his client legal advice?}
I think you are confused here. I do not believe that Sprague claimed that; he did not give Fumo legal advice, but rather that he gave Fumo legal adivce that was different, or conflicted with the legal advice that he may have received from others, which he chose to rely and act upon.
It is clear that Sprague was providing legal advice; and billing him out the wazoo for it I might add ($800,000 over just 2 years).
Sprague billed him $400,000 in 2006 and $400,000 in 2007(that I know of), which he paid from his campaign fund (see below); and his funds show no debts due to anyone, so we can assume that he is either current and paid in full, or Sprague agreed to write off whatever balance was due.
Sprague was billing him prior to this in 2005 and 2004 and Fumo had the state senate pay $1.2 million in legal defense costs up until the time he was indicted. Perhaps there were more Sprague billings to different entities or individuals for their defense; which indirectly benefitted Fumo as well.
Remember the defense fund established for Mark Eister and Leonard Luchko? This defense fund was established by J. Whyatt Mondesire, the local chapter president of the NAACP; lawyer Rhonda Resnick Cohen, (married to Comcast executive and former mayoral aide David Cohen); and former U.S. Attorney Robert Curran, now a lawyer in Delaware County. Do you think that these three belong to the same country club as Luchko and Eister? Someone should have dusted for Fumo’s fingerprints here.
Fumo also established his own “Blind Trust” legal defense fund named Pheoenix Trust. The “Phoenix Trust” trustees are Donna Gentile O’Donnell, a health-care expert, Anthony DiSandro, former chief executive of Fumo’s bank and lawyer Jerry Segal. The brilliance of the “Phoenix Trust” legal defense fund is that it is not subject to campaign finance donation lmitations and disclosure laws, so unlike campaign funds, nobody knows who’s giving.
Remember that Sprague also represented Citizens Alliance, the Independence Seaport Museum and the PA Senate in he past as well; which is the genesis for the conflict of interest that caused Fumo to replace them rather than sign off on Conflict Waivers.
Fumo (or at least his contributors) was paying Sprague for legal counsel. Now; after first arguing in court that the conflicts that Sprague presented were okay; he dumped him, and is now looking to blame Sprague for what he contends is potentailly bad advice.
Expenditure Details
Recipient Date Amount
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 2/14/2006 $150,000.00
Description: LEGAL FEES
Filer/Payer: FUMO, VINCENT FOR SENATE
Report: 2006 Cycle 1
Expenditure Details
Recipient Date Amount
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 5/22/2006 $150,000.00
Description: LEGAL FEES
Filer/Payer: FUMO, VINCENT FOR SENATE
Report: 2006 Cycle 3
Expenditure Details
Recipient Date Amount
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 11/29/2006 $25,000.00
Description: LEGAL FEES
Filer/Payer: FUMO, VINCENT FOR SENATE
Report: 2006 Cycle 7
Expenditure Details
Recipient Date Amount
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 12/27/2006 $25,000.00
Description: LEGAL FEES
Filer/Payer: FUMO, VINCENT FOR SENATE
Report: 2006 Cycle 7
Filer Number and Name Report Cycle Type of Report
7900582 – FUMO, VINCENT FOR SENATE 2007 Cycle 2 2nd Friday Pre-Primary
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Description: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
1/30/2007 $50,000.00
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Description: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2/12/2007 $350,000.00
September 11th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Furlong:
From the 9-9-08 Inquirer: “In a 2007 news conference, the day after Fumo was indicted, Sprague said Fumo had sought legal advice on deleting documents from another lawyer, ‘not me.’”
Now whether or not Sprague did or didn’t give the advice, the man was already claiming it wasn’t him in 2007 — not a conflict, just saying it wasn’t him.
I’m actually finding your logic a bit confused.
There’s also no direct link between this issue and campaign donations. Sprague could have advised Fumo on any number of matters.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I am logically challenged and occasionally logically impaired so don’t give yourself a headache trying to comprehend it all the time; just roll with it.
I was just responding to your inquiry of {How can they claim attorney-client privilege when the attorney claimed, in the past, to have not given his client legal advice?}
They are not claiming the privilege on this particular issue. The defense response suggests that the prosecutors should only get a limited amount of documents; I believe their intent is that the documents pertain to this particular issue only, so they are not claiming privelige exists on this matter, because of documentation supporting their defense it suits their interest for it to be disclosed. They want to continue to assert prvielege with respect to other matters, since I suspect there is much in the communications that would not be beneficial to either Fumo or Sprague.
Fore more color on the double edged sword here for Sprague consider this:
{Sprague lawyer Mark B. Sheppard filed court papers yesterday asking Yohn to determine the scope of Fumo’s limited waiver of attorney-client privilege and modify the feds’ subpoena so that Sprague’s “mental impressions” are redacted from any documents Yohn might order Sprague to turn over to the government.}
This may speak directly to Fumo’s defense, because he may have been relying on Sprague’s “mental impressions” communicated on this issue, which could have been offered on the basis of political, rather than legal grounds. The guy might be Yoda, but he is an 80 year old Yoda who I am sure more often spoke to Fumo as a “friend” rather than a “client” and the advice he might have given to one would not necessarily be the same as he would give to another, because one would be off the cuff, while the other would have been researched internally by an attorney and perhaps peer reviewed as part of the process.
The “mental impressions” of Sprague may be the only documentation on this particular issue. If the privilege is voided on a broader scope of issues any benefit that Fumo might gain from a reasonable defense on the obstruction charges, could be obliterated by the additional documents provided on other matters.
My point with respect to Sprague’s billings was that, his campaign fund had no legal expenses from Sprague in the two years prior to his indictment in this matter. I contend that is because Sprague was billing the state for his services then; so who was the client at that point, prior to the indictment when there was no defendant; Fumo, or the state, or both?
After he was indicted, Fumo was billed $800,000 over two years in 2006 and 2007, but the destruction of documents and electronic evidence occurred; or at least began prior to that time, when the taxpayers were footing the bill for Sprague, and the client for whom privilege would extend seems uncertain at this point. Was Sprague representing Luchko and Eister at that point, or just Fumo?
I think that Cogan was too cute by half here, and did not anticipate the governments response and the potetnial consequences of a favorable ruling in support of their broader subpeona should it come to that. The reaction since seems to have raised some genuine concerns of both Fumo and Sprague, which is all the more reason to want to see as much of the documentation in Sprague’s file as possible.
What are the prospects that Yoda; with Fumo no longer a client or friend, would scrub up his own files in anticipation of potential civil litigation for maplpractice from Fumo? Anything that may have mysteriously disappeared in the normal course of their client file retention policies, could certainly have gone by the wayside prior to the receipt of this recent subpeona as well. Especially if Yoda’s perception was that anything pre-indictment was good to toss.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Very useful post. where can i find more articles about this issue?