When the indictment was announced, New York criminal defense lawyers shook their heads.  Sure, Bob Simels was a tough guy, a tough lawyer.  Criminal defense is no place for the weak.  But the allegations against him were astounding.  Eliminating witnesses?  That was tough to swallow.

Now it appears that the quiet in New York about Simels’ case was softly broken in Maryland, where the Baltimore City Paper posts about a grand jury has demanded information in an unrelated case about Simels’ involvement.

Meanwhile, in a Baltimore case that appears unrelated to Khan, another Justice Department attorney asked a judge to order Simels to cough up detailed information to a grand jury about how he’s getting paid to represent accused drug trafficker and money launderer Shawn Michael Green.

Just another day in the decades-long war between Justice and Simels.

The gist of the Maryland grand jury subpoena is for Simels’ records of fee payments with regard to Green, under the theory that Simels was being paid while Green was in the wind and engaged in drug dealing.  Like it or not, the payment of legal fees is not privileged information, though the government generally steers clear of the issue as a matter of comity more than anything else.

The specific information sought by the grand jury from Simels concerns “attorney fees and retainers received for the representation of Green, the amount of funds received, the identity of the individuals who provided such funds, and the dates and manner in which such funds were provided (i.e., cash, check, wire, etc.).”

The likelihood that Simels will have all the information demanded is slim.  We’re lawyers, not accountants, and as long as no IRS Form 8300 is required, record keeping is generally minimal.  There is just no good reason to keep extraneous records, the only purpose of which would be evidence against a client.  But if he was paid for representation of Green while he was on the run, it implicates Simels in facilitating his conduct.  Still, fee payments alone provide minimal, if any, information that directly bears on any relevant issue.  It’s just that they are an easy target for prosecutors to use to go after Bob Simels.

At the same time, according to the article, prosecutors in New York rebuffed Simels’ attempt to obtain the return of the security for his bond, claiming he was a danger to the community without a secured bond.  Simels’ attorney, Gerald Shargel, argued that there was no finding of danger or flight when the bond was originally set, thus precluding the government from arguing it now.

The prosecutors, Steven D’Alessandro and Morris Fodeman, went ahead and called Simels dangerous anyhow, while arguing that they are not required to prove that he is. In doing so, they restated the allegations–that Simels sought to bribe and threaten witnesses, including with violence–and note that Simels is wealthy, that the evidence against him is strong, and that his behavior was conducted in his role as an attorney.

“The Court can have little confidence,” the prosecutors continued, that Simels will not further obstruct justice “now that Simels, as opposed simply to a client, would benefit” from such crimes. Thus, they concluded, “there exists a palpable danger were the defendant released without significant pre-trial conditions,” such as the high bail set when he was first arrested.

While the allegations against Simels claim that he was involved in the neutralization of witnesses in a case, it’s not as if he walked the streets kicking puppies or pushing old people out of the way.  What “palpable danger” they are talking about is entirely unclear, but it certainly makes him sound awfully evil and dangerous.  It sounds like typical government hyperbole without any substantive basis behind it.  The question remains whether it will suffice, as it usually does.

Whether the government will next claim that Simels was responsible for the Lindbergh baby kidnapping remains to be seen, but it’s clear that the government has him in their crosshairs and has no intention of cutting him a break.  This very strange case remains very strange, and the zeal with which the government approaches Simels’ prosecution does not appear to be abating in the slightest.

H/T David Giacalone.