Brune & Richard
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Parse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Client (Implied Epstein)
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00009235.jpg
This document is a table of contents (page xi) from a court filing dated February 24, 2022, listing exhibits and transcripts related to a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It indexes materials from 2011 and 2012, including emails between various individuals (Viviann Stapp, Randy Kim, Suann Ingle, Kendra Melrose), jury selection materials, internal emails from 'Brune & Richard,' and transcripts of telephone conferences and new trial hearings. The document also references a supplemental memorandum of law filed by the United States opposing a motion for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 24, 2022) recording an argument by Ms. Davis (prosecution) against a motion for a new trial for defendant Mr. Parse. Davis argues that Parse received a 'platinum plated defense' and that his previous counsel (Brune & Richard) made a strategic decision to keep Catherine Conrad as Juror No. 1 despite knowing her identity, a choice that resulted in acquittals on some counts. The text discusses the 'Strickland standard' for ineffective assistance of counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00010134.jpg
This document is a page from a legal declaration or expert report authored by Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert. It analyzes a court transcript involving attorney Trzaskoma and the law firm Brune & Richard regarding their investigation of a juror named Catherine Conrad (Juror Number One). Gillers concludes that the lawyers' actions and disclosures to the court were entirely consistent with legal ethics rules.
DOJ-OGR-00010132.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 6, 2012, analyzes a July 8, 2011 Memorandum of Law concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. It argues that the firm's lawyers had no professional duty to disclose information discovered in March and May because the relevant ethics rules require 'actual knowledge,' which the lawyers lacked. The discussion is framed by the receipt of a letter from 'juror Conrad' on June 20 and the adversarial nature of the legal system.
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
This document page, filed on April 6, 2012, is part of a legal analysis discussing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers, specifically referencing New York Rules and Rule 11 sanctions. It cites case law (Pennie & Edmonds, Polk County v. Dodson) to establish the standards for 'bad faith' and the role of defense counsel in an adversary system. The text concludes by framing a specific inquiry into whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 6, 2012, presents an opinion on the ethical obligations of Brune & Richard lawyers concerning disclosures related to a new trial motion involving juror Conrad. It concludes that the lawyers did not violate their ethical obligations in their research, motions, or communications with the Court. The opinion is based on a review of various legal documents and transcripts, and references the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
This document is the first page of a declaration by Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU, filed on April 6, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. Gillers outlines his qualifications and states he was asked to address whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard met their ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1.' The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice release (DOJ-OGR stamp), though the specific text on this page relates to the Daugerdas tax fraud case rather than explicitly mentioning Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
DOJ-OGR-00009992.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving an attorney named Brune. Brune testifies to representing a male client since 2004, expressing a strong personal connection, care for the client, and a belief in his innocence regarding a criminal case. The testimony also establishes Brune's leadership role as a named partner at the law firm Brune & Richard.
DOJ-OGR-00009987.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where an individual named Brune is being questioned. Brune confirms having worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, leaving in November 1997 to start the law firm 'Brune & Richard' with Hillary Richard on February 2, 1998. Brune also clarifies that their partner, Hillary Richard, is primarily a civil lawyer.
DOJ-OGR-00009496.jpg
This document is a legal transcript where a speaker argues that the law firm Brune & Richard made a deliberate, strategic choice not to inform the court about a potential issue with a juror. The speaker contends that on May 12, after an investigation concerning Theresa Trzskoma, the lawyers, including Susan Brune, consciously decided against taking action, which the speaker believes cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for their client, Mr. Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009453.jpg
This document is an exhibit (A-5849) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), but originates from a 2012 filing in the 'United States v. Daugerdas' case (1:09-cr-00581-WHP). The text analyzes the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard regarding their knowledge of misconduct by 'juror Conrad' and whether they had a duty to disclose information discovered in March and May 2011. It concludes that the lawyers did not have 'actual knowledge' requiring disclosure under Rules 3.3(b) and 3.5(d).
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal memorandum or expert report (filed as part of court proceedings in 2012 and re-filed in 2022) analyzing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers. It cites case law regarding the 'adversary system' and specifically questions whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011. The text discusses the balance between client confidentiality and the duty of candor to the tribunal.
DOJ-OGR-00009448.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal opinion or declaration filed in April 2012 (and re-filed in 2022) regarding the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard. The text argues that the lawyers had no obligation to disclose certain research regarding juror Catherine Conrad at specific times. It lists various documents reviewed, including briefs, letters, and hearing transcripts from 2011 and 2012, and cites New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009310.jpg
This document is page 249 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune, an attorney, regarding the marketing and claims made on the website of their law firm, Brune & Richard. The questioning focuses on Brune's self-description regarding 'sound strategic choices,' 'meticulous preparation,' and 'forceful advocacy.'
DOJ-OGR-00009308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers Brune's professional background, specifically leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York in November 1997 to start the law firm Brune & Richard with Hillary Richard in February 1998. The witness confirms that while Hillary Richard has done criminal cases, she is primarily a civil lawyer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity