Thursday, October 15, 2009

NWH uncovers origin of complaint

Don't miss Page 8C of this morning's Northwest Herald, in Jill Duchnowski's article about the contempt charge against former special prosecutor David O'Connor that may be heard tomorrow morning in Judge Condon's court.

I say "may be" because Continuances are too popular in all courts, including courts in McHenry County.

The contempt request in the Dalby case has to do with the alleged release of confidential Grand Jury testimony to the Illinois ARDC.

Here's the kicker from this morning's article, in which the reporter relates a comment made to her by Dalby's attorney, Wes Pribla.

"Pribla said he decided to file the contempt motion without consulting Dalby because he believed it was the right thing to do."

I read the Motion yesterday and should have bought a copy of it. As I recall, it says that Dalby believes O'Connor released the information, not that Pribla believed it. The issue for me is that this continues the legal matter involving Dalby, and the contempt accusation is filed in her name.

Now her attorney says she wasn't consulted?

Will O'Connor request that it be dismissed, because Dalby wasn't consulted about it? Will Dalby be in court tomorrow morning to support her petition? And will Judge Condon agree with O'Connor?


Whitmore2 said...

Your readers eagerly await your synopsis of the hearing. (At least this reader does.)

Another Lawyer said...

Deep breath...exhale. In this case Wes Pribla has a duty to disclose violations to the ARDC if he has actual knowlege of them. That's just the rule, has nothing to do with client's wishes.

Why do you keep on doing this "against the wishes of the client" dance. Do attorney's not listen to you? There seems to be something else going on here with you, Gus.

Gus said...

So, if an attorney believes that a violation has occurred, cannot he disclose it to the ARDC? Why drag the client into it?

In the Dalby case and for the hearing tomorrow, the action is being brought by Dalby, according to the papers filed.

The reporter says that Pribla told her that he decided to file it without consulting Dalby.

In this case, it's not "against" her wishes. Apparently, she didn't know anything about it, before he filed it.

Gus said...

Against the "wishes" of the client is different than against the "interests" of the client.

I don't believe I've written anything pertaining to the Dalby case that gave an opinion of legal advice that was against the wishes of anyone.