Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass citing New York legal precedent asks that Judge Juan Merchan clarify for the jury in a curative instruction to combat the defense’s notion that there’s “nothing improper about not having a retainer agreement.”
Steinglass said, “It is in fact the law.”
“We don’t think that’s right, judge,” Bove says in response, pointing to different New York case law.
Bove says he appreciates that Steinglass didn’t suggest there was bad intention on the defense’s part, but said the prosecutors are trying to place weight on their argument that a written retainer agreement is required between an attorney and a client.
Bove cited law, saying that a retainer might be required to collect fees from a client when there’s a dispute over the fees but a retainer is not ethically required to provide services.
“I’ll read the rules, I’ll read the decisions and I’ll get back to you on that,” Merchan says.
If he determines there is a requirement for a curative instruction, he adds there will have to be a follow-up.
“This is the government seeking to put weight on their argument,” Bove argues with regards to the proposed curative instruction.
