From the New York Lawyer, New Haven criminal defense lawyer Gregory Cerritelli has found himself in the one place that no lawyer ever wants to be:  The witness stand.  It all started in the ordinary fashion.

Last year, Cerritelli, of New Haven’s Knight, Conway & Cerritelli, negotiated a misdemeanor plea deal for Lisa Lantz with three years’ imprisonment suspended, plus three years of probation and repayment of the money.

After the sentence was imposed, that’s where most criminal defense lawyers shake their clients’ hands and wish them the best of luck, with the warning to stay out of trouble and heed the probation officer.  Though you tell them to call you if they need anything, one hopes that the call never comes and that the client thereafter leads a happy, accusation-free life.

Unfortunately for Ms. Lantz, that wasn’t to be. 

Last fall, Lantz paid $53,350, and was arrested Oct. 27 for the probation violation of incomplete restitution. This year, a relative offered a check for about $29,000 on the balance, which the state calculated as $32,425. The lower figure is not good enough, said Meriden assistant state’s attorney James Dinnan.

There has to be some back story to this, as it seems unfathomable that Lantz would be violated for failing to complete restitution.  The typical remedy is a tongue lashing by the judge and a new payment schedule based upon the defendant’s ability to pay.  The old saw, you can’t get blood from a rock, applies.  Obviously, that’s not the case here.

So Dinnan moved to have Cerritelli relieved as Lantz’s lawyer so that he could be called as a witness against her.

The issue, he said, is whether Lantz has the ability to meet the restitution requirement of her probation. Cerritelli has already spoken in court about some of what he knows about Lantz’s financial situation. 

“Violation of probation is out of the realm” of the attorney-client privilege in this case, said Dinnan. Furthermore, he added, the probation violation hearing set for Aug. 4 is not a trial.

Not being a Yankee, there may be ethical rules that apply in a different fashion in Connecticut than apply elsewhere in the United States (or many foreign nations).  While the legal fees paid to a lawyer are not covered by privilege, I can see no rationale for other information about the client’s personal situation, including finances, learned during the course of representation to be outside the privilege.

Cerritelli argued that, by relieving him, the court interfered with his client’s right to counsel of choice.  Dinnan’s argument, that this doesn’t implicate the client’s 6th Amendment right, is conclusory at best and inexplicable at worst.  Yet, of course, he got a judge to go along with him.

Cerritelli said Lantz could potentially be forced to serve three years in prison based on the hearing results. “This hearing is every bit as serious as a trial,” Cerritelli said. “And Ms. Lantz’s right to be represented by the counsel of her choice is constitutionally protected. I fully expect her to assert her attorney-client privilege.”

Well, putting Lantz in prison for three years will certainly help to get restitution for the victims.  So what’s the prosecution’s point?

Notably, the prosecution doesn’t seek Cerritelli’s testimony about criminal conduct that the client may have committed while in his care, but removed him as lawyer to engage in a fishing expedition.  At the barest minimum, the prosecution would have to show that it had no other source to ascertain the evidence it seeks before interfering with Lantz’s constitutional right to counsel of choice, and only then after the court has balanced the need with the right.

But then, when it comes to making a showing that a person possesses the wherewithal to pay restitution, there are always a variety of ways to show that someone is holding back and concealing wealth.  Sure, the attorney’s knowledge would be one of the easier paths to obtain the information, but it’s the path that requires the court to trample on the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Something smells very bad with this situation, and I bet there’s more to this story than meets the eye.  Perhaps one of my Connecticut friends could enlighten me?  Based on the report, this strikes me as absurd, most notably with the client attempting to satisfy the restitution requirement by proffering an additional $29,000 and the state rejecting it because it falls slightly short, preferring instead to open this Pandora’s box.  Why?