Would this count as a confession?

[Famspear]

News item, from the Associated Press, Friday, January 4, 2008:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_ ... aOm4FI2ocA

[excerpt:]

New details in death of Clinton neighbor

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer

The neighbor of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton who is accused of murdering his wife admitted to police he had a 10-year affair with another woman and had sent her flowers two days before his wife was shot.

According to court papers released Friday, disbarred lawyer Carlos Perez-Olivo also told investigators that the day of his wife's killing, Nov. 18, 2006, was the other woman's birthday.

Perez-Olivo, who lives in Chappaqua on the same cul-de-sac as the Clintons, was arrested in December in what a prosecutor called a chilling "execution" of his wife, Peggy, more than a year earlier.

He has pleaded not guilty and is being held on $1 million bail. The papers filed by the district attorney's office were released after a brief session in Westchester County Court. Perez-Olivo, his hands cuffed behind him, did not speak.

He contends his 55-year-old wife was killed by an assailant who forced their car off a dark road near Chappaqua and shot her in the head and him in the abdomen. He has suggested the killer was perhaps hired by a dissatisfied client.

[ . . . ]

Perez-Olivo told police he also had other "small" affairs and his wife didn't know of the long affair with the Georgia woman. He also admitted he "made a hell of a lot more money than I said on my taxes."

Perez-Olivo had been disbarred three months before the shooting for refusing to return unearned funds to clients.

Perez-Olivo's lawyer, Robert Buckley, insisted Friday that the couple was happily married and said affairs should have no bearing on the case.

At the time of the killing, a Clinton spokesman said the couple were "saddened" at their neighbor's death. The shooting had no apparent effect on security at the Clinton home.

Smart guy.

[Famspear]

More on this guy, from:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1155303323211

N.Y. Panel Disbars Defense Lawyer for 14 Actions
Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
08-14-2006

A lawyer accused of providing an incompetent defense in a high-profile murder case last year has been disbarred for misleading and stealing from four other clients.

Carlos Perez-Olivo made headlines last November after he allegedly forgot part of his closing argument in defense of Elio Cruz, a waiter who was subsequently convicted in the 2004 shooting of his wife's lover on a Manhattan subway platform.

The Appellate Division, 1st Department, said Perez-Olivo had committed at least 14 acts of attorney misconduct in his representation of four other criminal defendants. The counts included his neglect of cases, his refusal to return unearned retainers and bail money, his use of a non-refundable retainer agreement and his failure to avoid conflicts of interest.

[ . . . ]

In Matter of Carlos Perez-Olivo, M-1520, the unanimous court confirmed a recommendation of disbarment by a disciplinary hearing panel and a referee. In addition to disbarring Perez-Olivo, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 in restitution to the sister one of his clients.

In one of the cases cited by the court, Perez-Olivo took $20,500 to appeal the conviction of a defendant facing incarceration and deportation. His failure to perfect the appeal led to its dismissal, after which he asked his client to "withdraw" her appeal on the grounds that it was frivolous. The client was deported, and Perez-Olivo did not respond to requests for a partial refund of his fees or an accounting of his charges.

In two other cases, he refused to return to clients bail money either given to him to post bond or returned by the court after the resolution of the case. He took $10,000 to post bail for one client who was arrested in Pennsylvania, even though he was not admitted to practice in that state.

Perez-Olivo also was cited for asking a client to sign a retainer agreement stating that a $10,000 "deposit fee" was "non-refundable regardless of the time that I spent on this case or if for whatever reason I am removed from the case."

He was quickly disqualified from representing that client because he also was trying to represent an alleged co-conspirator in the same matter. Perez-Olivo refused to return the $10,000 on the grounds that he had spent 23 hours researching the issue of conflicts of interest.

At the time of Perez-Olivo's representation of Cruz, which was not at issue in his disciplinary proceeding, The New York Times reported that, just before the start of deliberations, a juror in the case wrote a note to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman complaining about the lawyer's performance.

The juror, Anne Alexandra Holland, said she was upset that Perez-Olivo ended his summation by reportedly saying, "There is more, but I've forgotten it."

According to the Times, Holland said she feared "for anyone else [Perez-Olivo] is hired to defend." She was replaced as a juror.

Cruz's family said at the time they would appeal his conviction on the grounds of Perez-Olivo's incompetence. The Legal Aid Society, which is handling Cruz's appeal, did not return a call for comment.

A graduate of the University of Puerto Rico School of Law, Perez-Olivo forfeited his license to practice law in Puerto Rico in 2000 after he failed to answer disciplinary charges against him there.

He also had been previously admonished in New York for similar misconduct. The appellate panel said his past disciplinary record was an aggravating factor in favor of his disbarment.

[LPC]

Perez-Olivo refused to return the $10,000 on the grounds that he had spent 23 hours researching the issue of conflicts of interest.

It is my recollection and understanding that lawyers are *not* allowed to bill clients for the time they spend figuring out their own ethical obligations.

Or perhaps that's just the way I think it should be.

[webhick]

Perez-Olivo refused to return the $10,000 on the grounds that he had spent 23 hours researching the issue of conflicts of interest.

It is my recollection and understanding that lawyers are *not* allowed to bill clients for the time they spend figuring out their own ethical obligations.

Or perhaps that's just the way I think it should be.

One accountant I have to work with billed my client for 13 hours for correcting some SUI returns and 941s. The problem I had with the billing was simple. First of all, she was the one who screwed them up to begin with, as evidenced by the multiple IRS notices about discrepancies. Secondly, she sent out the bill right after I told her that I had resolved everything with the IRS and the state. Thirdly, no evidence of corrections beyond mine have surfaced. And it's been a year.

One lawyer billed for researching a payment a client had made, but was never applied to the account. $150 to research a payment for $112.52. Disgusting. Especially since I faxed them a copy of the canceled check.

I agree that if it isn't against the rules for lawyers to bill for researching their own ethical responsibilities, it should be. Now, as a layman, I also think it shows a level of incompetence of the attorney to take 23 hours researching conflict of interest issues. Isn't there some kind of hotline you can call and ask for advice? I recall something maybe being mentioned on L&O, but the memory is a bit sketchy.

Or is it more of a support group like Lawyers Anonymous?

Group Leader: It looks like we have some new faces. Would anyone care to introduce themselves?
New Guy: Hi, my name is John and I can't stop sleeping with clients for retainers.
Everyone: HI JOHN!
John shyly smiles and nods nervously.
Group Leader: John, have you considered sleeping with clients for things other than orthodontic devices?
John: No, I quite like retainers. But once, I had a fanta...
Marie: Toothpaste. I highly recommend toothpaste. And floss. Floss is sensuous.
Becky: Cite! CITE!
Group Leader: Now everyone calm down. John has the floor.
Becky: CITE! CITE!! CCCIIITTTEEE!
Group Leader: Who's in charge of the tranquilizer gun today?
Greg: I am! [and proceeds to shoot each member of the group in turn]
Greg: Now I have the floor! Cite that, bitch.

You know, come to think of it, perhaps a Lawyers Anonymous group would be a bad idea.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...Perez-Olivo told police he also had other "small" affairs and his wife didn't know of the long affair with the Georgia woman. He also admitted he "made a hell of a lot more money than I said on my taxes."

In response to the originally posted question: No.

But then again he might engage Van Pelt.