Alex Jones lawyer could face legal consequences for phone records release

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

(Reuters) - The lawyer defending conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a Texas trial drew his own national headlines this week for accidentally handing over highly-sensitive data to his adversaries, opening him up to potential legal consequences.

Houston lawyer Federico Andino Reynal acknowledged that Jones' legal team had provided lawyers for parents of a child killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting with a digital copy of the Infowars founder’s phone contents, which included text messages and medical records.

The disclosure was made public by a lawyer for the parents in a dramatic exchange with Jones as the trial neared its close.

The revelation may have exposed Reynal to sanctions in a different case, as well as the potential for malpractice claims by Jones, according to court documents and lawyers following the trial. Jones could pursue a malpractice claim against his attorneys, but would have to prove that he would have had a better result from the Texas trial if the phone information hadn't been handed over, said Randy Johnston, a legal malpractice lawyer in Dallas.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alex-jones-lawyer-could-face-legal-consequences-for-phone-records-release/ar-AA10npqA

[Irish_Dem]

1. Could attorney malpractice invalidate the jury's decisions?

[Ocelot II]

5. No, the cause of action for attorney malpractice belongs to the client

and doesn't by itself invalidate the jury's verdict. That verdict might have been influenced by the lawyer's fuckup but that's an issue for an appeal where the losing party - the lawyer's client - could ask for a new trial, though this usually isn't successful, so the client's remedy would be to pay the verdict and then sue the lawyer.

[Irish_Dem]

8. Thank you for the info. Very interesting. Raises other questions then.

So the attorneys were not trying to sabotage the legal consequences for their client.
You are saying it is grounds for appeal, but usually not successful.

It seems quite foolish in fact for the attorneys who are now wide open for a malpractice suit.
How much danger are they in? From a legal and financial standpoint?

Can they lose their licenses to practice?
Would a jury award damages to their client for the sloppy work?

Maybe it was a big mistake like they claim.

However there are some missing pieces to this case.
Jones is obviously not smart enough to have run his stalking grift for so long.

I do wonder if someone else was funding and guiding him.
Maybe they intervened here in some way.

[Ocelot II]

10. Jones, like TFG, was probably unable to find any competent lawyers

to represent him. Lawyers generally carry malpractice insurance, and I'm pretty sure these knuckleheads have notified their insurers, who would pick up their defense if Jones sues them. Like any other tort case, a legal malpractice case would be decided by a jury unless the parties both agreed to let a judge decide it. If it was a mistake that shouldn't have happened if the lawyers had exercised reasonable care, it's malpractice. They wouldn't necessarily lose their licenses on account of it unless what they did also violated their state's rules of professional conduct for lawyers - that's a completely separate issue.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Usually malpractice insurers represent their interests and like to settle.

Because it is cheaper for them.

The insurer may pressure the professional to admit to some liability which then may impact the licensing board issues. Yes the malpractice and license are two issues.

Professionals don't want to lose their license which severely impacts future earning potential, but the insurer wants to mitigate their financial hit.

We shall see how this plays out.

I hear you that the legal team may have been junior league and then it makes sense it was a mistake.

Of course when it comes to the GOP who knows?
They love all this covert behind the scenes stuff.

I come from the psychology, history, political side of things and something here doesn't add up yet.

[Ms. Toad]

11. All of those questions

Are exactly why attorneys have been saying it was an accident. No attorney would expose themselves to that kind of potential professional and financial liability.

Attorneys are bound by the code of ethics not to disclose their client's confidential information. Doing so subjects them to discipline up to and including loss of their license. In addition, since this kind of disclosure would be malpractice, they will be responsible for any harm caused by the malpractice (whether deliberate disclosure - or - simply failed to respond appropriately when opposing counsel notified him of the accidental disclosure).

[Zambero]

2. Bad lawyer

No cookie. As for Jones, pony up, you were going down in any event!

[getagrip_already]

3. Wasn't that information under subpoena?

How can a lawyer be held responsible for being responsive to a subpoena?

[Ocelot II]

6. He could have opposed the part of the subpoena that included medical records

unless they were relevant to the case.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Except that he wasn't even entitled to have those records.

It is counsel in the other Sandy Hook cases who provided those medical records to this attorney who will be most at risk for that information.

But in addition, it sounds as if the entire content of the phone (including non-responsive information) was disclosed. There may be significant liability associated with disclosure of damaging information outside that was not even requested by counsel in this case

[Ocelot II]

17. A huge cock-up, for sure.

And it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch, except maybe for TFG himself.

[Ms. Toad]

18. There may be fallout for TFG.

Observation from a Facebook group a friend of mine is in (shit women with law degrees say):. No matter how lousy your day might be today, you can take comfort in knowing that you're not Alex Jones' lawyer this morning.

[ZZenith]

14. The medical records were those of the plaintiffs in a different Sandy Hook case, by the way.

Records Mr. Jones should in no way possess. Psychiatric evaluations and such.

[mopinko]

4. since the stuff was subpoenaed i suspect he doesnt have a leg.

but i bet he sues, anyway. might get a pay put from insurance.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Not all of it.

For example, the medical records of the other Sandy Hook parents weren't subpoenaed. There is probably a lot of information that was damaging in other actions (J6, for example) that was not responsive to the subpoenas I'm this case. There was probably a lot of other information which was confidential (and not subject to disclosure, or to limited disclosure via a confidentiality log with a generic description of the nature, but not content, of the documents).

So, while I suspect you are right, as to this case, the damage may not be limited to this case.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. And he needs (Jones) to be nailed for lying under oath. NT

[AllaN01Bear]

9. goodness gracous , from the fring pan into the frying pan.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. The Connecticut judge is pissed

Link to tweet