District attorney slaps back at Long Beach counsel
It's hard to keep up in Long Beach.
Besides warning the Long Beach City Council against waiving client privilege in response to a request from the District Attorney for information about questionable separation payments, Acting Corporation Counsel Greg Kalnitsky today apparently also shared his thoughts with Nassau District Attorney Madeline Singas' office.
And Singas office slapped back.
The district attorney did not request a "blanket waiver" as Kalnitsky suggested, but asked for a waiver specific to internal legal communications about the separation payments, which have roiled the city for more than a year, wrote the head of Singas' public corruption unit, Christine Maloney.
She also pointed out that Kalnitsky himself had violated attorney-client privilege by revealing publicly that a late corporation counsel some 20 years ago opined that employees in some instances could receive more in separation pay than stipulated by the code.
Maloney added that the district attorney considers Kalnitsky a "witness in this matter."
It is not wise to cross the district attorney.
And it is even less prudent to suggest, as Kalnitsky did in his email to council members, that the DA was violating New York State's Code of Professional Conduct for attorneys by writing directly to the City Council rather than the City Council's attorney.
In her emailed letter, Maloney said the DA is seeking a waiver "because our investigation has shown that employees and former employees of the City of Long Beach have claimed that they may have relied on the advice of attorneys in Corporation Counsel's office when making decisions about separation payouts....For example, you yourself have publicly claimed that the calculation of the separation payouts were based on the advice of former Corporation Counsel Joel Asarch."
She added, "We believe that the City has already waived its attorney-client privilege protection with respect to the subject matter of the separation payouts in any event, when you voluntarily disclosed the legal memorandum authored by Joel Asarch on the subject without reserving any privilege claim at the time of its disclosure."
As to the suggestion that the DA may have violated the code of professional responsibility, she said the office first contacted attorney John Gross, who had been hired by the City Council to respond to a state comptroller's draft audit. But Gross said his representation had ended.
Maloney said the office also contacted lawyer Anthony Capozollo, hired by city management more than a year ago to respond to the separation payment investigations. Capozollo raised no objections, she wrote.
"We did not contact you, Mr. Kalnitsky, because at this time we consider you a witness in this matter, and should we obtain the waiver we have requested, we may seek information from you."
Besides warning the Long Beach City Council against waiving client privilege in response to a request from the District Attorney for information about questionable separation payments, Acting Corporation Counsel Greg Kalnitsky today apparently also shared his thoughts with Nassau District Attorney Madeline Singas' office.
And Singas office slapped back.
The district attorney did not request a "blanket waiver" as Kalnitsky suggested, but asked for a waiver specific to internal legal communications about the separation payments, which have roiled the city for more than a year, wrote the head of Singas' public corruption unit, Christine Maloney.
She also pointed out that Kalnitsky himself had violated attorney-client privilege by revealing publicly that a late corporation counsel some 20 years ago opined that employees in some instances could receive more in separation pay than stipulated by the code.
Maloney added that the district attorney considers Kalnitsky a "witness in this matter."
It is not wise to cross the district attorney.
And it is even less prudent to suggest, as Kalnitsky did in his email to council members, that the DA was violating New York State's Code of Professional Conduct for attorneys by writing directly to the City Council rather than the City Council's attorney.
In her emailed letter, Maloney said the DA is seeking a waiver "because our investigation has shown that employees and former employees of the City of Long Beach have claimed that they may have relied on the advice of attorneys in Corporation Counsel's office when making decisions about separation payouts....For example, you yourself have publicly claimed that the calculation of the separation payouts were based on the advice of former Corporation Counsel Joel Asarch."
She added, "We believe that the City has already waived its attorney-client privilege protection with respect to the subject matter of the separation payouts in any event, when you voluntarily disclosed the legal memorandum authored by Joel Asarch on the subject without reserving any privilege claim at the time of its disclosure."
As to the suggestion that the DA may have violated the code of professional responsibility, she said the office first contacted attorney John Gross, who had been hired by the City Council to respond to a state comptroller's draft audit. But Gross said his representation had ended.
Maloney said the office also contacted lawyer Anthony Capozollo, hired by city management more than a year ago to respond to the separation payment investigations. Capozollo raised no objections, she wrote.
"We did not contact you, Mr. Kalnitsky, because at this time we consider you a witness in this matter, and should we obtain the waiver we have requested, we may seek information from you."
Comments
Post a Comment