home

Colorado Boots Snitch Lawyer

When we first caught up with the news about Ohio criminal defense attorney Frank Pignatelli who became an informant for the feds against some of his own clients to avoid indictment on drug and money laundering charges for allegedly having acted in concert with them, he was practicing law in Denver, including representing defendants in federal drug cases.

A few weeks ago, the Colorado Supreme Court filed a petition to suspend his Colorado license to practice law because he allegedly lied on his bar admission application, stating he had never been under investigation.

The Colorado Supreme Court has now revoked Pignatelli's license -- our local alt weekly Westword has all the colorful details. [More...]

From the petition to suspend Pignatelli:

From June 2002 until April 2005, federal and Ohio state authorities conducted an extensive investigation into a large scale crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy distribution organization... During the course of such investigation, which involved the use of court ordered interception of wire communication over cellular telephones, investigators learned that [Pignatelli] seemed to be involved in the criminal conspiracy.

Particularly, intercepted telephone conversations indicated that [Pignatelli] was instructing members of the conspiracy about ways to avoid law enforcement detection and how to launder proceeds of the illegal drug trafficking. In addition, it appeared that [he] was attempting to introduce distributors of controlled substances to each other in an effort to ensure supplies of illegal drugs would flow.

Westword adds that when the feds first confronted Pignatelli at his Ohio home:

Inside, they apparently found $639,000 in dirty cash and a man quite willing to squawk to save his own hide.

When I first wrote the story up, I ended it with a line from a Bon Jovi song, "You give love a bad name" because of the likelihood that Pignatelli's actions would be used to smear all defense lawyers. Westword doesn't disappoint:

It's that last part [squawking to save his own hide]that seems to really gall his peers. The legal blog Simple Justice called the "lawyer rat" one of the "lowest scoundrels to ever call himself a criminal defense lawyer." (Ouch. That's like being named the shortest guy in a room full of midgets.)

Westword's low blow to all defense lawyers aside, I'll agree, good riddance to Pignatelli.

< Rockefeller Drug Laws: Big Changes Ahead | Sunday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Answer (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by rea on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:07:28 AM EST
    Doesn't the concept of confidentiality between a client and lawyer prohibit someone like Frank Pignatelli from becoming "an informant for the feds against some of his own clients"?

    The attorney-client privilege does not extend to advising clients how to commit crimes, or otherwise helping them in criminal activity.  But of course, the ethical attorney doesn't respond to this situation by enthusiastically participating, and then ratting out his clients--the ethical attorney tells his clients up front the limits of the privilege, and refuses to help commit crimes.

    Speculation: this fellow wore (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    lots of chunky gold jewelry.

    Why do I sustect..... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Rojas on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    this guy's going to end up in Texas?

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    Wonder what it will be the next time we hear about this creep. I bet it will not be pretty.

    Question (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    Doesn't the concept of confidentiality between a client and lawyer prohibit someone like Frank Pignatelli from becoming "an informant for the feds against some of his own clients"?

    I've found that folks who diss Lawyer (none / 0) (#4)
    by tokin librul on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    generally have never been defendants...

    Or they have (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rojas on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    and couldn't afford a real one.

    Parent
    "Couldn't afford a real one" - a canard (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    In my 30+ years as a criminal defense attorney, beginning as a public defender, I have not found an especially high correlation between what my colleagues charge and the true value of their services.  This is especially true of public defenders, who seem to be the target of your crack, Rojas.  At least around here -- Philadelphia -- the public defenders are among the very best defense attorneys, and I know this is true in most parts of the federal system and in many of the big cities for local cases as well.  (Not saying it isn't true elsewhere, just that I don't know.)  And among my private sector peers, by no means would I rate them for excellence by how much they charge.

    Parent
    A canard (none / 0) (#11)
    by Rojas on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    I think not.
    And that wasn't a shot at PDs.
    It takes money to take on the state. If you don't have it, you're setting down to a stacked deck.

    Parent
    or simply (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    can't afford "justice for all."

    Parent
    As a resident of Akron, Ohio (none / 0) (#8)
    by GeorgiaE on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    where this creep hails from.  Good luck attorney Pignatelli, I hope the $639,000 (DIRTY CASH) was worth it. I wonder how many more like you are out there...