Relationship Details

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.

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.'

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.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The dialogue involves 'The Court' and attorney Mr. Shechtman discussing the conduct of lawyers named Brune and Richard. The debate centers on whether the lawyers' 'lack of candor' was due to carelessness or a strategic decision to 'game the system' and conceal information from the court.