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.

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.

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