Bobby Frederick at South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog posts about a dirty Ohio lawyer who decided to take it to new depths.  From the Akron Beacon Journal, the story of Frank Pignatelli.

According to court records, Pignatelli was facing his own indictment as a co-conspirator when he agreed to work undercover for federal drug investigators more than three years ago.

With Pignatelli’s help, federal agents have arrested 30 people from Akron and Cleveland, and seized hundreds of pounds of marijuana and cocaine, along with cash and property totaling more than $3 million.

Many of the charges have led to convictions, which could not have happened without the former Akron lawyer’s help, attorneys said.

It is, quite plainly, about as inconceivably ruinous to the integrity of the criminal justice system for a person masquerading as a criminal defense lawyer to use the information obtained to rat people out.  I say “masquerading” as a rat cannot, by definition, be a criminal defense lawyer.  It would be a contradiction in terms.  He can wear the suit, talk the talk, but he cannot be a lawyer, no less a criminal defense lawyer.  It isn’t possible.

That Pignatelli became embroiled in his clients’ conspiracy isn’t exactly shocking.  Criminal defense lawyers have long found themselves around huge amount of proceeds, tempted by the allure of easy wealth and willing to sell their souls to enjoy it with their clients.  Most lawyers realize the line between lawyer and defendant and scrupulously honor.  A few, like Pignatelli, cross it, and they should face the consequences.

But there is no place horrific enough in the bowels of hell for the soul of a lawyer who would flip on his clients to save his sorry criminal butt.  Then again, as he’s already made the choice to sell his soul for a pile of cash, he’s lost any hope of integrity and the step to being a rat is a small one in comparison. 

But what of the government’s use of this scum-lawyer’s information?  Regardless of the lawyer-turned-criminal rationalization, which serves well to impugn the lawyer, it offers no consolation to the defendant who engages the lawyer, speaks to the lawyer, places his faith and trust in the lawyer, because he’s a lawyer.  How is the defendant’s privilege changed by the lawyer’s descent into crime? 

The article offers no explanation or discussion of this issue, and aside from the argument that it’s Pignatelli, not the government, who violated privilege, none comes to mind.  The flaw with this facile rationale is that it is not the lowest of lawyers who is the last defender of the privilege, but the Court.  The court is the stop-gap when the lawyer does wrong, and steps in to protect the integrity of the system when the lawyer fails.  Where is the court on all this?  Why is the court allowing the government to use Pignatelli’s privileged information?  There’s no answer given.

To add insult to injury, Bobby concludes on a painful note. 

According to the article, he is now practicing . . . federal criminal defense?

Pignatelli’s law license in Ohio is inactive. He works as an attorney in Denver, a private practice that includes defending alleged drug dealers in federal court.

Such a good rat, Pignatelli was never indicted for his conduct and instead was left to ply his trade elsewhere.  I bet he wanted to get far away from Ohio very quickly.  Very quickly indeed.  Of course, Colorado should now be aware of this fine attorney in its midst, and hopefully the local defendants will learn what type of person this faux-lawyer Pignatelli is and conduct themselves accordingly.

The Beacon Journal reporter tried to interview Pignatelli, but he “declined comment.”  Suddenly, he doesn’t want to talk.

Update:  Bennett adds another dimension to the Pignatelli story when he asks, what kind of schmuck would hire Frank Pignatelli?  He cuts Pignatelli more slack than I would (or do), by allowing for the possibility that he wasn’t really dirty and just “got spooked,” a possibility that is both too far-fetched and precluded by the fact that he was never prosecuted because he turned snitch as fast as he could to be worthy of serious consideration, but could be true under the “pigs could fly” theory.  In any event, Bennett’s point is worthy of reiteration.  If a client thinks a lawyer who plays dirty is a good thing, let Pignatelli remind them that a dirty lawyer will play dirty for the other team as well. 

One final note: The possibility also raised is that Pignatelli didn’t give up privileged information, but only information obtained during the course of his own commission of crime.  While this flies in the face of the “just got spooked” theory, since then he didn’t commit crimes and only gave up his clients, it’s a hair-splitting argument at best.  Pignatelli wasn’t accused of committing crimes independent of his law practice, but as a part of his representation.  He wasn’t going out on the street to snatch chains during lunch, but helping his clients buy stash houses. 

The fact that Pignatelli went over the line doesn’t change the fact that his clients thought their discussions with him were privileged because he was their lawyer.  The clients aren’t responsible for Pignatelli’s crossing the line, and their confidences aren’t waived because of Pignatelli’s choices.  Nope, there’s no credible way to explain away this one.