Bob Simels was convicted of 12 out of 13 counts.
In an earlier New York Law Journal article, a number of practitioners were asked if they would use language like Simels. They gave carefully guarded answers, conceding that we talk to clients in a different fashion than we would to a judge or jury, using words designed to make our point in a way the listening would best understand. Of course, no one was asked, or answered, about how much detail would be used in describing how one would eliminate a witness, particularly about harming bystanders in the process. The lawyers were careful not suggest use of the precise language used by Simels.
This case will likely have a chilling effect on how lawyers speak to clients, their family and “friends” in the future. It’s good that it does. The words Bob Simels used weren’t necessary, and perhaps this will remind all of us not to be careless, sloppy or confusing in our choice of language. Of course, the jury believed that Simels did chose his words carefully, and meant exactly what he said.
This should also remind us that we are lawyers, and our zealous representation must always remain within the bounds of the law.
What is troubling is that Simels associate, Arienne Irving, who has been largely forgotten in this case although she too faces life in prison, was convicted along with Simels. It’s my read from the news reports that there was essentially no evidence against her, other than being Simels associate. While Simels is master of his own fate and made his own choices, I question what role she had in this fiasco, and whether her indictment was a ploy to get her to flip on Simels. Now she’s convicted, and it’s not clear what she did or how she shared Simels’ intent to justify it.
While it’s fair to rip Simels to shreds, give some though to Arienne Irving.
My understanding of the case, relying on some awful tapes made by the rat of Simels giving instruction about “eliminating” and “neutralizing” witnesses, is that the context and detail of the tapes was damning. As much as he could explain his use of specific words, the surrounding detail was far harder to dismiss, and undermined his argument that this was just his way of using “street” talk to make his point to the rat.Robert Simels, a New York criminal defense lawyer, was convicted by a jury of a scheme to “eliminate” and “neutralize” federal witnesses slated to testify against one of his clients.Simels, a former Special Assistant Attorney General for New York’s Special Prosecutor’s Office who once represented pop artist Peter Max, was convicted of 12 of 13 charges against him, including multiple counts of witness tampering, bribery, and illegal possession of eavesdropping equipment. He was cleared of a sole charge of making false statements to the U.S.
In an earlier New York Law Journal article, a number of practitioners were asked if they would use language like Simels. They gave carefully guarded answers, conceding that we talk to clients in a different fashion than we would to a judge or jury, using words designed to make our point in a way the listening would best understand. Of course, no one was asked, or answered, about how much detail would be used in describing how one would eliminate a witness, particularly about harming bystanders in the process. The lawyers were careful not suggest use of the precise language used by Simels.
This case will likely have a chilling effect on how lawyers speak to clients, their family and “friends” in the future. It’s good that it does. The words Bob Simels used weren’t necessary, and perhaps this will remind all of us not to be careless, sloppy or confusing in our choice of language. Of course, the jury believed that Simels did chose his words carefully, and meant exactly what he said.
This should also remind us that we are lawyers, and our zealous representation must always remain within the bounds of the law.
What is troubling is that Simels associate, Arienne Irving, who has been largely forgotten in this case although she too faces life in prison, was convicted along with Simels. It’s my read from the news reports that there was essentially no evidence against her, other than being Simels associate. While Simels is master of his own fate and made his own choices, I question what role she had in this fiasco, and whether her indictment was a ploy to get her to flip on Simels. Now she’s convicted, and it’s not clear what she did or how she shared Simels’ intent to justify it.
While it’s fair to rip Simels to shreds, give some though to Arienne Irving.
H/T Ed at Blawgreview.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m a little surprised that the defense bar (to the extent that there is such a unified entity) hasn’t made more of a stink about the idea of the DOJ shifting its focus from a defendant to the defendant’s lawyer. Be careful not to fight the gov’t too hard, they might come after you. That said, if Simels meant what he said, he deserves what he got.
I do feel awful for Irving. From what I followed of the case, it seems she’s just a kid a few years out of law school who took a job assisting highly regarded defense lawyer. She didn’t set strategies, make decisions, or anything remotely like that. If you told me that Simels often forgot her name, I’d believe it. Now she’s going to jail.