Had the Puritans taken a more northerly tack, Anna Gristina might be honored as an innovative entrepreneur rather than sitting in the dock as the latest Million Dollar Madam. But they didn’t, and so it’s a crime for women to do with their bodies what lawyers do with their minds.
How exactly the prosecution arrives at the conclusion that she’s made many millions of dollars remains unclear. No doubt there’s an algorithm for it, just as a kilo of coke can be portrayed as a million dollars worth with the right assumptions. And without all the zeroes, the story wouldn’t be nearly as interesting.
Yet, despite her declared wealth, she sits beside her appointed lawyer, Richard Siracusa, who has been at the criminal defense game for 37 years. I would like to his website, but he has none. He hasn’t even claimed his Avvo profile. He has no logo.
On her other side sits another lawyer, Peter J. Gleason, admitted 2004, but who nonetheless has no website, though he does have a logo-less LinkedIn profile. According to the New York Times :
Mr. Gleason wanted Mr. Siracusa removed from the case. The judge saw no reason to comply with that request, and Mr. Siracusa characterized Mr. Gleason’s role as a “hindrance.”“She is an intelligent, stoic, strong-willed person with some very sound ideas on the type of person she wants to represent her,” he said, adding that Mr. Siracusa did not fit the bill, partly because he had not visited Ms. Gristina on
. Mr. Gleason, who said that he was representing Ms. Gristina at no charge, asked that Justice Merchan remove Mr. Siracusa from the case. Rikers Island Justice Merchan then asked Mr. Gleason to describe his experience handling criminal cases. Mr. Gleason replied that he had never tried a felony case but had handled elements of cases involving disorderly conduct and assault.
Let’s recap. Mr. Siracusa is assigned to defend Ms. Gristina and has 37 years experience in criminal defense. Whether he has an iPad is unknown.
Mr. Gleason will represent Ms. Gristina at no charge, but he’s never tried a felony case. He has, however, “handled elements” of disorderly conduct and assault cases. Whether he’s ever tried any case is unclear.
Mr. Gleason did demonstrate the curious judgment of having Ron Kuby appear as his attorney, which didn’t turn out all that well for Ronny as he was told to get his butt out of the well. Why, exactly, he needed a lawyer wasn’t entirely clear, but then, I would never suggest that any person go anywhere without their lawyer.
The assistance from Mr. Gleason didn’t end with a free ride, but with some icing on the cake that might turn a few heads:
After the two co-counsels consulted briefly, Mr. Gleason told the court that he wanted to put up his TriBeCa loft as security to help Ms. Gristina make her bond of $2 million. He added that Ms. Gristina and her family could then move into the loft with him while she awaited trial.
The prosecutor raised the obvious retort:
[Assistant District Attorney] Charles Lenihan, objected, saying, “We believe it’s unethical.”
Whether this is accurate depends on a few factors, not the least of which is what motivates Mr. Gleason to put his own home at risk for the benefit of a client. Of course, there is nothing per se unethical for a lawyer to post bond. Why would he do so? According to the never-hyperbolic Kuby :
“I think Pete Gleason has a passion for justice and a congenital hatred of bullies. And when he sees someone being pushed around, he intervenes,” said civil-rights lawyer Ron Kuby, who is aiding Gleason.
Of course, Ronny feels that way too, yet he isn’t putting his home up for bond. Perhaps Gleason is a really, really, passionate guy. Really passionate. Go figure.
Rarely does the chance to represent an indigent defendant give rise to such in-fighting. If a defendant wishes to be represented privately, and the lawyer is willing to be engaged, even if he’s not being paid, it’s not up to the court to supplant the defendant’s choice just because it sounds, well, ridiculous. We make our own bed, for better or worse. Yet Anna Gristina didn’t utter the words, “I want Gleason to be my lawyer.” Then again, she didn’t tell Siracusa to get lost either.
So what makes lawyers fight over the role of defending an indigent Madam? It could be the chance to hold a press conference, and get their handsome face on the telly. It could be their deep belief in justice, even if it’s never been manifested in prior legal representation. Or it could be something more unseemly.
When it comes to lawyers putting aside their pecuniary interest and doing the hard work of representing a person accused of being a Million Dollar Madam, there is apparently no shortage of willing lawyers. And they say indigent criminal defendants are an underserved population.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry Scott, I don’t practice criminal law in the United States but doesn’t the judge ask Ms. Gristina who she wants to have represent her? Doesn’t the accused have choice of counsel?
I would have thought that would be the first question, and yet not a single report of the proceedings mentions it. Maybe everybody is just enjoying the show too much to be rational?
Aside from the sadness of fighting over crumbs, this is beyond peculiar.
The lawyer who wants to work for free has his own lawyer, and Kuby at that. Isn’t the madam supposed to have Kuby?
He’s admitted in 2004 and according to the NYPost, he has a 2.5 million dollar loft. Presumably the money comes from something other than practicing law. And he’s willing to put it up for the defendant. I’d kind of understand wanting to work for free if he were living in a studio by railroad tracks in Queens, hoping for a shot at getting his name in the paper. But with a 2.5 million dollar loft, who needs the aggravation of being exposed as incompetent in a high profile criminal case?
How some defendants find their way to competent counsel, appropriate for their case, and others come nowhere close, is a mystery to me. If I understood it, I’d probably be a much wealthier lawyer than I am.
Anyway, I’m just glad the blog is back.
One word: Logos.
Ha! I suppose logos might indeed explain how some defendants come nowhere close to appropriate counsel.
I could make a crack about hos and lawyers, but I won’t.
Except to point out that prostitution involves sex and free enterprise and these folks obviously have a problem with both.
I thought I already kinda made that crack. Not obvious enough?
Isn’t “logos” Greek for “logic”? Where is Socrates when you need him?
As much as I respect the role and thankless work of public defenders, Siracusa did not meet with his client at Rikers nor did he even contact her prior to yesterday’s court date. Is there ever an excuse for that? Hopefully, Gleason is motivated first by his “fundamental belief in justice” and is not pursuing the case out of self-interest.
Okay, I never knew Clara Foltz. You got me on this one. I had to google her.
Siracusa is 18b (appointed), not a PD. That said, there isn’t necessarily much of a reason for him to have gone to the Rock to meet between arraignment and the next appearance, usually 180.80 day. There’s nothing to do aside from prepping the defendant if she wanted to testify in the GJ, and if it was already determined at arraignment that she wouldn’t be testifying, the only purpose in going to Rikers is to hand-hold, not necessarily a critical lawyer function.
So the answer is there is often good reason not to go to Rikers to meet with the client if there’s no purpose to the meeting. To do otherwise would be to churn hours for the fee, and at 18b rates, it’s not much of a motivation.
Tell me about it.
Thanks SHG for takng the time to explain that. I am so unprepared to practice and hoping to be admitted in eight weeks . . .
Happy to help. Always bear in mind that time is a scarce resource. In order to have it available for the important things we need to do, we can’t squander it on things that don’t matter. Some clients want their lawyer to hold their hand 24/7, which is understanble but a terribly inefficient use of time. In order to fulfill our obligation to defend clients, we need to allocate the resource thoughtfully. We can’t make more hours in the day.