Perri O'Shaughnessy - Unfit to Practice

“As far as I can tell, yes.”

“Same second page?”

“As far as I can tell, yes.”

“Same third page?”

“No. There are additional words. The last sentences. I didn’t write them.”

“These words? ‘Client breaks down, says he set fire himself! Advised him don’t say any more, don’t want to hear this’?”

“Yes.”

“Ms. Reilly, please close that exhibit. Now, I want you to tell me the first full sentence on the second page.”

“Objection!” Jack said. “Irrelevant. Just because she can’t recite the whole thing by memory doesn’t prove that she can’t recognize words she never wrote.”

“She says she doesn’t remember writing these words,” Nolan said. “Let’s see what words she does remember.”

“That’s not a fair test, Judge. She knows what she was thinking at the time, what information she had heard at the time. That’s one reason she knows she didn’t write the words, because of the fact that the information was never given to her.”

“I think you’re getting ahead of yourself, Counsel,” Judge Brock said. “I will allow some limited testing of the witness’s memory as to the file contents.”

“The first full sentence on the second page, Ms. Reilly,” Nolan said, coming closer. “What does it say?”

“I have no idea,” Nina answered. “However, I know that what I wrote in that first sentence was based on something the client told me. So I know I wrote it. I also know that the last sentences on the third page are forged because they reflect information my client never gave me.”

“But you testified earlier that the notes often contain observations and judgments that are your own thoughts, did you not?”

“Yes, but the forged statements were not observations or judgments of mine at the time of the interview.”

“You also testified that you sometimes add things in later, after the client has left.”

“I didn’t add those final nineteen words. They were forged.”

“So you say. Is that your handwriting in those final sentences?”

“It looks like my handwriting. I might not even know it wasn’t my handwriting, except I know I never wrote those last words. That’s a forgery.”

“You’ll admit it looks like your handwriting?”

“It’s a decent forgery, I guess.”

“You insist that it’s a forgery. So who forged it?”

“I have no idea.”

“Why would anyone do that?”

“I can only speculate.”

“But do you have any personal knowledge? Can you enlighten us in some verifiable fashion as to who, why, when, where, anything at all?”

“Not of my own personal knowledge. However, I feel this is part of a pattern. In all three of the files there was some sort of interference prejudicial to the client. In the Vang case, these sentences were forged. In the Brandy Taylor matter, Cody Stinson received an anonymous call. In the Cruz matter, Ali Peck was called anonymously. Mr. Cruz has also now filed a blatantly false charge against me.”

“You may feel all sorts of things. But do you have any proof that there is someone out there trying to harm your clients?”

“The whole train of events. The theft of my files in the first place.”

“But that could just as easily have been a car thief who inadvertently rode off with your files, am I correct? For all you know?”

“But then the file contents were read and used. That’s more than a car theft.”

“Do you have any personal knowledge that the person who, as you put it, interfered in each case is the same person each time?”

“Makes sense to me,” Nina said. “Person or persons.”

“Okay, let’s look more closely at your theory that this is all part of a pattern. Now in the Brandy Taylor matter, Ms. Taylor told you, and you noted in the file, that she had evidence that Mr. Stinson had committed a murder. And I will remind you that Mr. Stinson testified that there was then a call to him stating exactly this damaging information.”

“Correct.”

“And in the Cruz matter, Mr. Cruz told you, and you noted in the file, that a witness named Ali Peck had information harmful to his custody case. And then let me represent to you and to the court that attorney Jeffrey Riesner will testify that he received a phone call informing him precisely about this harmful witness.”

“Yes.” Nina knew where Nolan was going, and that Jack couldn’t stop her. Helpless, she clenched her fists tight, holding on to her anger.

“So the file contents were read and reported to others, as you say.”

“Yes.”

“And isn’t it true that exactly the same thing happened in the third case? That your client Mr. Vang told you a secret, just as Ms. Taylor and Mr. Cruz did. You wrote it down. And just as in those two cases, Heritage was contacted, and the company was told the damaging information. Isn’t that the pattern?”

“No,” Nina said, continuing the struggle to keep her feelings off her face and out of her voice.

“This third party, whom none of us has identified, if this third party did all this, it would seem that his M.O. was to reveal secrets, not to make them up, wouldn’t it?”

“The Vang case was different. There was no secret in that case.”

“Mr. Vang didn’t break down and tell you that he had burned down his own store?”

“Absolutely not!”

“Mrs. Vang never said that?”

“No!”

“You didn’t learn that from someone and add it to your own notes?”

“No!”

“Who did burn down that store, then?”

“The police haven’t arrested anyone.”

“So Mr. Vang hasn’t been cleared?”

“He was never arrested. There’s no evidence that he burned his store down!”

“Oh, yes there is. There’s his confession in your file. And the little matter of his flight to Laos.”

Nina drew a long breath. “Even if he confessed to me, which he didn’t, it would be privileged information, inadmissible in any real court.”

“Strange to hear you say that, when it was your carelessness that allowed it to fall into the public eye, isn’t it?”

“Objection,” Jack said. “Argumentative.”

“Sustained. Let’s move on, Counsel.”

“Isn’t it true that there is no other suspect in connection with that fire and that Mr. Vang admitted to you he caused the fire?”

“Compound,” Jack said.

“Rephrase the question.” It was dizzying. Nolan was cross-examining Nina on direct examination. Nina struggled to get her bearings. She couldn’t anticipate what Nolan would ask next. The suspense in this box made strategic thinking impossible. Every moment, she felt the guillotine blade trembling above.

“Did Mr. Vang admit he caused the fire at the time of the interview?”

“No. No.”

“Did he deny it?”

“In so many words, yes.”

“Isn’t it true that you conspired with the Vangs to put in a fraudulent claim for them, knowing the arson was caused by Mr. Vang?”

“No, that is not true. Why would I put my career in jeopardy by doing something so unethical and criminal?”

“You’re a sole practitioner?”

“Yes.”

“Your income varies sometimes substantially from month to month?”

“Yes.”

“How much did you charge Mr. Vang for this work you did for him?” Nolan held up the exhibit that contained her billing to the Vangs.

“Two thousand four hundred dollars.”

“For writing a letter to the insurance company?”

“The case involved an extensive set of exhibits. I put in numerous hours helping the Vangs collate their receipts.”

“Couldn’t your secretary have done that? Collate receipts?”

“I preferred to do it.”

“Let me see, you were charging forty dollars an hour to collate receipts, so that would be-oh, here it is. Sixty hours. Sixty hours you put in to write this letter?”