Latest on MJJC

Murray hires a new lawyer / Geragos raises conflict of interest issue

diana79 said:
I don't understand why Gourjian wants to work for Murray. Is it just because it's a high-profile case?

It seems like an obvious conflict of interest to me, Gourjian is saying that he didn't really work on Michael's case, but did he have access to any information from that case? Are physical and electronic files locked, so that only lawyers working on the specific case can access them?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even if Gourjian didn't work on Michael's case back in 2005, as an associate with the firm, he had access to the files. Just the fact that Gourjian worked for Geragos (and possibly Michael in the past) gives the impression of impropriety. This Judge needs to do the right thing and not allow Gourjian to represent Murray in this case..
 
Good for Geragos in coming forward and good on the Judge for seeking the Estate's input. And yes, it does beg the question that IF this lawyer had access to MJ's personal info why he'd want to work for Murray? Defo a conflict, imo.

This judge has been pretty fair, imo; seems to have good instincts about things.
 
I would really, really like to know how a Texas lawyer found Gourjian. Did Gourjian approach Chernoff? Interestingly, he left Geragos and joined the GLG in Jan 2010.
But I doubt we'll ever find out.

As for him not being involved with Michael's case, well, I disbelieve that completely esp. since any reference to Gourjian's experience states that he served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on Michael Jackson's case. Somebody's lying. What a surprise.
 
A post by AdverseParty at In Session boards

A cached copy of attorney profile on the Gourjian law firm site:

Upon graduating from Loyola Law School, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including King of Pop Michael Jackson, R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

And what it looks like now:

Nareg Gourjian joined the Gourjian Law Group in January 2010. Mr. Gourjian provides GLG the highest quality of service consistent with his training and background. Prior to joining Gourjian Law Group, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.



http://www.gourjianlaw.com/nareg.html

------------

his list of high profile clients included the name Michael Jackson previously , and now it has been removed?
 
ivy said:
A post by AdverseParty at In Session boards

A cached copy of attorney profile on the Gourjian law firm site:

Upon graduating from Loyola Law School, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including King of Pop Michael Jackson, R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

And what it looks like now:

Nareg Gourjian joined the Gourjian Law Group in January 2010. Mr. Gourjian provides GLG the highest quality of service consistent with his training and background. Prior to joining Gourjian Law Group, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.



http://www.gourjianlaw.com/nareg.html

------------

his list of high profile clients included the name Michael Jackson previously , and now it has been removed?
Click to expand...

Haha - good find! I guess he thinks that if he just takes Michael Jackson off his website, he can work for Murray.

I just don't understand why this guy wants to work for Murray so much when it seems obvious that this is a conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
A post by AdverseParty at In Session boards

A cached copy of attorney profile on the Gourjian law firm site:

Upon graduating from Loyola Law School, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including King of Pop Michael Jackson, R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

And what it looks like now:

Nareg Gourjian joined the Gourjian Law Group in January 2010. Mr. Gourjian provides GLG the highest quality of service consistent with his training and background. Prior to joining Gourjian Law Group, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.



http://www.gourjianlaw.com/nareg.html

------------

his list of high profile clients included the name Michael Jackson previously , and now it has been removed?
Click to expand...
that little sneaky move right there ...should tell us that there is something that is tying to go on behind the scenes. ...thank you for catching that IVY....things like this say they know they are trying to defend a guilty man....why else would they try and get this guy in there so bad. Lets just keep out eyes open and stay alert....I am ure they will try more trickery in the future.
 
diana79 said:
Haha - good fine! I guess he thinks that if he just takes Michael Jackson off his website, he can work for Murray.

I just don't understand why this guy wants to work for Murray so much when it seems obvious that this is a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Excellent research! Thanks.

I smell herring, big time.
 
talk about desperate to make a name for yourself. i hope geragos has the goods on this guy interms of all the things he was involved in. cause all mark has to do is show it to the judge and its a no brainer.
 
StacyJ said:
Where is Michael's family? like you said we the fans are the only ones that seem to care.. MJ's family is nowhere to be found.. They should be on tv, at the courthouse putting that murderer through the ringer. They are not fighting for MJ at all and it's so so sad!

Lord I wish MJ had had a wife or at least a good supportive friend who could help him. None of those folks surrounding him gave a damn about MJ
Click to expand...

AMEN! The family are only concerned with being interviewed in which they can plug their new book or whatever - good/bad/indifferent memories doesn't matter - anything but help their brother get justice against Murray the murderer!

Oh Lord, so do I, anyone who, as well as the fans, actually ever gave a damn about our Michael!
 
ivy said:
A post by AdverseParty at In Session boards

A cached copy of attorney profile on the Gourjian law firm site:

Upon graduating from Loyola Law School, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including King of Pop Michael Jackson, R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

And what it looks like now:

Nareg Gourjian joined the Gourjian Law Group in January 2010. Mr. Gourjian provides GLG the highest quality of service consistent with his training and background. Prior to joining Gourjian Law Group, Mr. Gourjian practiced for seven years with the prominent law firm of Geragos & Geragos. At the Geragos firm, Mr. Gourjian served as co-counsel with managing partner Mark J. Geragos on numerous high profile cases including R&B singer Chris Brown, Scott Peterson, and hip-hop/rap artist Nate Dogg.



http://www.gourjianlaw.com/nareg.html

------------

his list of high profile clients included the name Michael Jackson previously , and now it has been removed?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! Now that's just childish. There is a difference between being "childlike" and "childish" after all. :rofl:
 

Lawyer with Jackson ties wants to represent doctor
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A lawyer who worked for celebrity attorney Mark Geragos during his representation of Michael Jackson said Tuesday he wants to join the defense team representing Jackson‘s doctor on an involuntary manslaughter charge.
The move by attorney Nareg Gourjian raised the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said that loyalty to a former client, even one who is dead, is part of the rules that must be obeyed by all attorneys.

Dr. Conrad Murray, who was Jackson‘s personal physician at the time of his death, is accused of negligence in giving him the powerful anesthetic propofol and other sedatives listed as the cause of death in the pop star’s autopsy.

Murray has pleaded not guilty. He did not attend Tuesday’s hearing

Geragos represented Jackson on child molestation allegations from 2003 to 2005 but left the case before the trial in which Jackson was acquitted.

Gourjian, who appeared in court with Murray’s lawyers, said he was a new attorney when he was hired by Geragos and did little on the Jackson case.
Geragos‘ associate, attorney Pat Harris, brought the situation to the judge’s attention.

“Our position is there may be a conflict. We feel it is our duty to disclose it,” Harris said. “We have the highest respect for Mr. Gourjian as an attorney.”

Judge Pastor said he wants to hear from Geragos and an attorney for the Jackson estate on whether Gourjian‘s possible involvement in the Murray case would be a breach of loyalty to Jackson under California’s Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.

The judge set a hearing for Feb. 24 on the issue.

Attorneys Ed Chernoff and J. Michael Flanagan, who represent Murray, proposed that Gourjian be allowed to substitute into the case, replacing attorney Joseph Low, who withdrew last week. Deputy District Attorney David Walgren said he had just heard about the plan.

“It does raise substantial concerns for the people, and it needs to be fully aired out,” Walgren said. “We need to know more details.”

Meanwhile, Walgren complained that defense lawyers had not provided any statements or evidence they plan to present at trial from a proposed list of 91 witnesses.

Chernoff said the lawyers don’t have any statements or reports yet and were continuing to interview experts who might testify.

Walgren said the prosecution has turned over thousands of pages of discovery related to its list of 107 possible witnesses.

The trial is expected to last six weeks. The judge suggested that given the current state of affairs, the defense might not be ready by the March 24 start date.

Chernoff, however, who requested the early opening for jury selection, said he would be ready.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/16/lawyer-with-jackson-ties-wants-to-represent-doctor/?page=2

I don't understand how anyone could think this wouldn't be a breach of loyalty to Michael for this lawyer to take part. Even if he 'did little' on the 2003-5 case, he still obviously did something. I also wish the family would issue some sort of a statement about this but perhaps they are waiting for the estate lawyer to say something? And even if that is the case, they could make a statement saying that much. At least we would know the family is concerned about this. But the silence is deafening.
And now the defense hasn't given the prosec. any statements, etc? They say they'll be ready but what if they are not? It was their call to go for a speedy trial.
I get the feeling there is some sort of maneuvering going on by the Texas gang.
 
cinzia said:
gourjian law group was established in 2005, they seem to have an annual revenue of 500,000 to 1 million dollars, a staff of 1-4. gourjianlaw.com/index.html

Maybe they are looking for publicity and increased income. This certainly will give their firm plenty of free advertising.
Click to expand...


For sure !! don't forget that the judge talked about allow the airing on TV - no better publicity !!
I'm glad Mark Geragos makes a stand, he could have say nothing and let his ex-associate live his life.
Integrity. Loyalty.
 
cinzia said:
I don't understand how anyone could think this wouldn't be a breach of loyalty to Michael for this lawyer to take part. Even if he 'did little' on the 2003-5 case, he still obviously did something. I also wish the family would issue some sort of a statement about this but perhaps they are waiting for the estate lawyer to say something? And even if that is the case, they could make a statement saying that much. At least we would know the family is concerned about this. But the silence is deafening.
And now the defense hasn't given the prosec. any statements, etc? They say they'll be ready but what if they are not? It was their call to go for a speedy trial.
I get the feeling there is some sort of maneuvering going on by the Texas gang.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking it doesn't mean that every lawyer or every person worked at a law firm will know everything or even anything about every case the firm handles. I did internship for 2 months in a law firm and all I did was helping the lawyers with the case law such as searching for cases that they would refer to as examples in their motions and such. I didn't know a single detail or a single bit of privileged info in any case.

So this new lawyer's involvement is anyone's guess as of know. The judge wants to hear from Geragos and wants a fact based information - meaning he wants to know what he did and what he knows and then determine if there a conflict of interest.

Jackson family can make a statement but do not think that they have legal grounds (sure they are an interested party). Technically and legally speaking Michael Jackson Estate = Michael Jackson. That's why the judge has asked for them and wants to hear their opinion.
 
So this new lawyer's involvement is anyone's guess as of know. The judge wants to hear from Geragos and wants a fact based information - meaning he wants to know what he did and what he knows and then determine if there a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
yeah its all pretty much down to mark imo. either he has the goods and this other lawyer does know to much and mark can show that or he doesnt. like u say just cause he was there doesnt straight out mean he knows sensitive info. but im gald mark stood up. and i hope that means he can show the judge that the other lawyer was involved to much for comfort
 
ivy said:
Generally speaking it doesn't mean that every lawyer or every person worked at a law firm will know everything or even anything about every case the firm handles. I did internship for 2 months in a law firm and all I did was helping the lawyers with the case law such as searching for cases that they would refer to as examples in their motions and such. I didn't know a single detail or a single bit of privileged info in any case.

So this new lawyer's involvement is anyone's guess as of know. The judge wants to hear from Geragos and wants a fact based information - meaning he wants to know what he did and what he knows and then determine if there a conflict of interest.

Jackson family can make a statement but do not think that they have legal grounds (sure they are an interested party). Technically and legally speaking Michael Jackson Estate = Michael Jackson. That's why the judge has asked for them and wants to hear their opinion.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's pretty informative. Question about the Estate. How would the lawyers for the estate actually know what this lawyer's involvement was, when he 'assisted' Geragos? Wouldn't they have to get info from Geragos? Otherwise, how could they form a worthwhile opinion?

As for the family, not speaking of legal grounds, why can't they say something, anything indicating they are even aware of what's going on, even if it's only a we have confidence in the right things being done, etc... As, you know, concerned family...
 
Thanks, that's pretty informative. Question about the Estate. How would the lawyers for the estate actually know what this lawyer's involvement was, when he 'assisted' Geragos? Wouldn't they have to get info from Geragos? Otherwise, how could they form a worthwhile opinion?
Click to expand...
i presume the estate will be made aware of the info geragos has and can either say we dont think he should be allowed to work on the case or we have no issue. the judge will then take that on board when making his decision

the family can say what they want but it will make no difference. the estate speaks for MJ
 
cinzia said:
Thanks, that's pretty informative. Question about the Estate. How would the lawyers for the estate actually know what this lawyer's involvement was, when he 'assisted' Geragos? Wouldn't they have to get info from Geragos? Otherwise, how could they form a worthwhile opinion?

As for the family, not speaking of legal grounds, why can't they say something, anything indicating they are even aware of what's going on, even if it's only a we have confidence in the right things being done, etc... As, you know, concerned family...
Click to expand...

there's something called "informed consent" - which is basically you are saying to both parties (previous and current client) "look there's a conflict of interest here , are you okay with it?". If both sides say yes then the lawyer can work for the new client.

In this case conflict of interest is with Michael - the question is "can a lawyer who worked for MJ also work against him" . So Michael , in other words his estate, is in a position to give "informed consent" or reject such consent. So it's not really about what they "know", it's more about what they "think/feel" about this situation.

The judge is calling the estate lawyer to hear "Michael Jackson's position".

Jackson family can easily talk freely in the media and/or twitter etc. I don't know why they aren't doing it. even legally I think they can argue to be an interested party but the estate is the representative here.
 
xthunderx2 said:
This laywer knows to much about Michael's personal business to be able to turn around and defend Murray. Thats just wrong...and I hope that the estate sees that. I think we should pay very close attention to this decision...I think the out come of it will tell us the direction that this trial will go.
Click to expand...
Very true I already find this lawyer immoral and unethical. How can he work for the man who is responsible for the death of a former client? Even if he was just a junior back then so what? It's just completely unethical.
I truly hope the Estate see's it the same way and objects, hopefully Geragos has the goods on him.

I hate how I'm only able to get tidbits of information due to my internet problem, hope once it is resolved I will be online more, so that I won't miss a thing about this trial.
 
So the next hearing will be today. Geragos will most likely be there to raise his concerns. Will the estate be present (with some lawyer) also already today?
I hope we'll get to know more today.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
thought it was the 24th?
Click to expand...
oh sorry... you're right... I mixed up dates!!! sheeeesh stupid me:doh: must be Alzheimers coming... so 24th... yeah that's next thursday then.
Do we know it's also the day the estate lawyer will be heard? will the judge make his decision that day also then?
 
ivy said:
there's something called "informed consent" - which is basically you are saying to both parties (previous and current client) "look there's a conflict of interest here , are you okay with it?". If both sides say yes then the lawyer can work for the new client.

In this case conflict of interest is with Michael - the question is "can a lawyer who worked for MJ also work against him" . So Michael , in other words his estate, is in a position to give "informed consent" or reject such consent. So it's not really about what they "know", it's more about what they "think/feel" about this situation.

The judge is calling the estate lawyer to hear "Michael Jackson's position".

Jackson family can easily talk freely in the media and/or twitter etc. I don't know why they aren't doing it. even legally I think they can argue to be an interested party but the estate is the representative here.
Click to expand...

Once again, thank you. That's pretty clear. Last question, (maybe :) ) If the estate 'thinks/feels' there would be a conflict of interest and does not give consent, how binding is this? Could the judge look at all the info presented and essentially overrule the estate? And if the judge were to go along with the estate, would the defense have any other options? It's kind of hard to imagine that the victim of a crime would consent to allowing a lawyer who once had a connection to him, even peripherally, to work for the person accused of killing him.
(guess that's more than one question! :D )
 
cinzia said:
Once again, thank you. That's pretty clear. Last question, (maybe :) ) If the estate 'thinks/feels' there would be a conflict of interest and does not give consent, how binding is this? Could the judge look at all the info presented and essentially overrule the estate? And if the judge were to go along with the estate, would the defense have any other options? It's kind of hard to imagine that the victim of a crime would consent to allowing a lawyer who once had a connection to him, even peripherally, to work for the person accused of killing him.
(guess that's more than one question! :D )
Click to expand...

Estate's position is a factor but not binding. The judge would listen to them and would take it to account. Like I said it's more about the "factual" information that this person might or might not know.

what do you mean by options?
 
Options, sorry, I didn't clarify. I meant is there, would there, be anything else the defense could do to get the new lawyer on board the team or use his 'dismissal' as it were, as a factor, I don't know, like file something that could be used at a later date during an appeal? Along the lines of: since we weren't allowed to use him, it affected the quality of our defense?
 
cinzia said:
Options, sorry, I didn't clarify. I meant is there, would there, be anything else the defense could do to get the new lawyer on board the team or use his 'dismissal' as it were, as a factor, I don't know, like file something that could be used at a later date during an appeal? Along the lines of: since we weren't allowed to use him, it affected the quality of our defense?
Click to expand...

perhaps only if they can prove judge's refusal of the attorney due to conflict of interest was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top