McHenry County Blog

This is the third installment of how Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz is defending against a motion for sanctions that, if granted, would end the wrongful termination suit that the now-reinstated Deputy has filed against McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren and others in the Department.

The subject moved from conflict of interest to spousal immunity.

Rose Seipler’s former attorney, John Nelson, is still on the stand.

Nelson won a motion previously in the case on that subject matter.

He there is “a certain immunity from disclosure.”

“It is an issue that attorney’s must tread very carefully with.”

“I represented Mrs. Seipler in a deposition. When did I stop [representing her]?” Horwitz asked.

“My memory was that you didn’t represent her in the deposition, just suggested to her she could assert her Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Nelson then explained that most clients think a lawyer who has previously represented them are their “attorney for life.

“You have to tell them when they may need other counsel.

“They don’t understand legal matt4ers.

“They trust you in matters of legal guidance.”

Horwitz pointed out that attorneys “also have to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”

“We have the responsibility to do the right thing,” Nelson said for the second time in the hearing.

“If I had called you, would you have told me what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz asked.

“No,” was Nelson’s immediate reply.

Horwitz asked when he and Nelson had met.

“Two or three court appearances ago” was the answer.

“Did she pay you?” Horwitz asked.

“She paid that day.”

“First time, too?”

“Yes. Retainer and paid a final bill.”

Horwitz then asked if there “came a time when Ms. Seipler told you about posting articles on the internet.”

An objection was made by Elizabeth Ekl, which Judge Frederick Kapala upheld.

At that point it was Nygren attorney James Sotos’ turn to question Nelson.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

Sheriff Keith Nygren, et al’s attorney James Sotos filed motions for sanctions, including dismissal of Zane Seipler’s wrongful termination suit because documents that had been sealed were posted to a blog from his home’s computer.

After Sotos completed his side of the case Tuesday, Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz put attorney John Nelson on the stand.

“I can’t answer any questions unless there is a waiver,” Nelson said in reply to Horwitz’ question about whether he has represented Rose Seipler.

A court filing showed Nelson had represented Zane’s wife Rose in a marital immunity motion.

It turns out she turned to him again when after the sanctions motions (see below) were filed.

In April, Rose was identified as the person who posted the confidential documents.

The first question was whether Rose would waive her attorney-client privilege.  She and her current attorney, Dennis Giovannini.

The privilege was waived and Rose left the courtroom.

Because Nelson’s testimony shows how a veteran defense attorney approaches criminal cases, I shall attempt detailed explanation of the questioning.

Previously, it had been pointed out by Sotos that Horwitz had represented Rose in a deposition.  Horwitz didn’t remember being at the deposition and it turns out he was not there in person, but did participation over the phone.

One of the key points that Sotos and his assistant Elizabeth Ekl made was that Horwitz had represented both Mr. and Mrs. Seipler.

Horwitz used Nelson to try to show Judge Frederick Kapala that what the did was proper.

In the deposition, Horwitz advised Rose to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify.

Nelson thought that appropriate.

During this line of questioning, which targeted the first time Rose went to Nelson, Sotos associate Elizabeth Ekl objected to Nelson’s being considered an “expert” on legal ethical questions.

“He’s a licensed attorney,” Judge Kapala pointed out, overruling the objection.  “What more does he need?”

“With regard to [a marital dispute], would it have been appropriate for me to represent Mr. and Mrs. Seipler?” Horwitz then asked.

“No, I don’t believe so,” Nelson replied, “because there’s an inherent conflict of interest.

“You could at your own peril.  By engaging in that type of conduct…[it] could result in problems for your client and then result in problems for you.

“It just leads to putting a barrier b3tween you and your client.?

The second call from Rose to Nelson was the next topic.

Horwitz asked if it would have been appropriate for him to represent both spouses in relationship to the blog postings of confidential material on the internet.

“If she said, ‘I have a lawyer,’ I think [Horwitz] would have been on dangerous ground trying to talk to her.  [An attorney] can’t talk to a represented client without her attorney’s consent,” Nelson said.

The question of the timing of the second representation came up.

October 26, 2011, was the date Nelson provided.

Previously, Soto has hammered Horwitz for not informing the Court of his suspicion that Rose had posted the documents.  He intimated that the two had cooked up the story that she had done it, arguing that the delay in Rose’s obtaining an attorney after the heated mid-August arguments between Zane and his wife was evidence of the falsity of the assertion that Zane had nothing to do with the posting.

At a previous hearing, Zane had pointed out that the family’s financial status was precarious with his not being back on the Sheriff’s Department payroll as Sheriff Nygren strung out his firing loss as long as possible (including a futile appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court).

More questions on conflict problems had Horwitz represented Rose as well as Zane.

“I would [suspect] a cautious, competent and good lawyer wouldn’t have done that,” Nelson opined.  “It could place you in an ethical conflict.”

Asked a similar question, Nelson replied, “Absolutely there was a conflict between Ms. Seipler’s and her husband’s interests.  It had to do with the potential of litigating the husband’s case effectively and the potential for Mrs. Seipler to have legal difficulties.”

Moving onto the second visit, Horwitz asked if Nelson needed to ask for a waiver.

= = = = =

More tomorrow.

I spent the day in Rockford’s new Federal Courthouse.

Good looking building, completed by the General Services Administration only about a year and a half behind schedule with the last repair being the installation of a new air conditioner on the new roof, according to the guards the last time around.

The big problem with the facility is there is no place for court parking.

The next door garage is being repaired. So, if you don’t have a permit, forget it.

One used to be able to park there for the day for well under $10.

There are all sorts of two-hour parking spaces.

So, what do you do when you’re in the courtroom of a conscientious Judge like Frederick Kapala?

He doesn’t give attorneys and spectators a break every two hours to go move cars from one space to another space.

He keeps right on working.

After the hearing, I was told by Rockford attorney John Nelson that the parking fine is $20.

He pointed out that by Chicago standards that might not sound outrageous, but it is considered so in Rockford.

So what does the title of this article mean?

There were two witnesses Tuesday in Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s wrongful termination suit.

The first was Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz.

He was on the stand three-fourths of the day being grilled by James Sotos and Horwitz associate Dan Dorfman.

The second was Nelson, who has twice acted as Rose Seipler’s attorney in this case.

The testimony of those two got us past 5PM, when the parking spaces are not limited to two hour shifts.

I managed to get through the day without a parking ticket.

Nelson had been waiting twelve hours to testify as questioning of Zane Seipler dragged on and on and on and on.

He finally got his chance today, but there are six more witnesses scheduled by Blake Horwitz for the next hearing at the end of August:

1. Scott Milliman (who has also been waiting outside the courtroom for five court days)
2. James Sotos (Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Department’s chief defense attorney)
3. Blake Horwitz (Zane Seipler’s attorney)
4. Zane Seipler
5. Rose Seipler
6. Dennis Giovanni (Rose Seipler’s current attorney)

If you are intrigued with attorney-client privilege, legal ethics, conflict of interest, timelines of what an attorney knew when, computer addresses of blogs, etc., this courtroom was for you.

After Nelson finished testifying, he told me that by being in Rockford in the morning I had missed Judge Thomas Meyer’s ordering all the attorneys in the Grafton Township Assessor v. Supervisor Linda Moore case be paid.

Those will include Nelson, Mike Poper and Ancel Glink for the Trustees, the latter at the suggestion of Judge Meyer.