One of the most intriguing aspects of the entire Stewart case was never addressed by either side: namely, that virtually every action for which Ms. Stewart was convicted took place after she had consulted with highly experienced and expensive lawyers. As legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers wrote before the trial in The American Lawyer, "defendants ordinarily retain lawyers after they commit their alleged crimes. In contrast, all the crimes charged against Stewart were allegedly committed while she was receiving the advice of excellent defense lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz -- one of the nation's best law firms. Three times, in fact, the indictment's chronology refers gratuitously to Stewart's lawyers [though not by name]."

The job of these lawyers was to keep their client out of any further legal difficulties. In doing this job, no lawyer should ever accept a client's initial account, especially if it is not corroborated by hard evidence. As Mr. Gillers correctly observed, every lawyer knows that "many clients lie even when they have nothing to hide." Even if the lawyer believes his client is being truthful, he should not allow the client to relate an uncorroborated account to law enforcement officials, unless the lawyer is absolutely certain that the account will not be subject to challenge by the government. (One would think that every lawyer would have learned that painful lesson from Bill Clinton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, who allowed the president to be deposed about his sex life without corroborating his highly questionable account.) Yet Ms. Stewart's original lawyers allowed her to make the statements to law enforcement officials that formed the basis of her convictions. It was these lawyers who then recommended her trial lawyer, Mr. Morvillo. ("We decided to add him to our team.") According to several lawyers familiar with New York practice, Mr. Morvillo and Ms. Stewart's original lawyers are part of the same "old boy" network of former New York prosecutors who sometimes refer cases to each other. It was Mr. Morvillo who made the decision not to put on any case.

Of course, Martha could always sue her lawyers civilly for malpractice. But, if she lied to them, and their advice was based on what she told them, would she prevail?

In any event, the unfortunate thing for Martha is that even if Morvillo or her other lawyers are found to be ineffective, unless she gets an appeal bond, she will have to serve any sentence imposed before such vindication is handed down.

Update: You can read Morvillo's closing argument here.