Yale Galanter Takes the Stand!

Yale takes the hotseat in the OJ ineffective assistance proceedings out in NV:

Galanter, a veteran Florida criminal defense lawyer, is a key state’s witness in a hearing that, since Monday, has revolved around his promises, payments and performance in the 2008 trial that sent the 65-year-old former football hero to prison for nine to 33 years for armed robbery and kidnapping.

Galanter faces some uncomfortable questions about his trial preparation, the nearly $700,000 he was paid but allegedly didn’t share with the Las Vegas lawyer at his side and why he didn’t try to block prosecutors from playing for the jury secret recordings that amounted to a soundtrack of Simpson and his five pals confronting two sports collectibles brokers and a middleman in a cramped casino hotel room.

Key among Simpson’s 19 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and conflict of interest being considered by District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell is the allegation that Galanter should have provided witness testimony supporting Simpson’s contention that he didn’t know he was breaking the law.

Simpson says the two even talked about it over dinner the night before the ill-fated confrontation in September 2007, and that Galanter told him that if Simpson recovered the suit he wore the day he was acquitted in Los Angeles, Galanter would like to have it.

Bell has made no indication whether she plans an immediate ruling or will issue a written decision later.

The most damaging testimony about Galanter’s performance came from three other lawyers involved in the case: Gabriel Grasso and Malcolm LaVergne, who represented Simpson, and Brent Bryson, who represented a Simpson co-defendant who also was convicted.
Each said Galanter seemed more interested in what he was paid and protecting himself from having to testify than in fully representing his client.

Yuck!

And you thought you were having a bad day.

"You Can Say Anything You Want in a Lawsuit."

Can you?

That's Yale Galanter, responding to a suit brought by his Nevada co-counsel Gabriel Grasso who has sued Yale for not paying him to help represent OJ:

Gabriel Grasso alleges in a civil breach of contract lawsuit that he was promised $250,000 to serve as local attorney following Simpson's arrest in September 2007. But he said Yale Galanter only paid him $15,000.

Galanter told The Associated Press that he hadn't been served with the lawsuit and couldn't comment on it. But he said he intends to fight.

"You can say anything you want in a lawsuit. Proving it is another matter," Galanter said Tuesday. "Gabe Grasso got paid everything he was supposed to get paid commensurate with his skill level, his ability level and his responsibilities as local counsel in Las Vegas."

The 17-page lawsuit, filed Friday filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000. It cites "extensive and time consuming" proceedings between Simpson's arrest in September 2007 and trial a year later.

Galanter, who is licensed in Florida but not Nevada, engaged Grasso as a Nevada lawyer and obtained permission from the trial judge to take part in the Simpson case in Las Vegas.

Grasso's lawyer, Joshua Tomsheck said Tuesday that Grasso did "the lion's share of the work." Grasso declined comment.

"They had a legal, binding agreement," Tomsheck said. "All the motions were filed by Gabriel Grasso. All the Nevada legal research was done by Gabriel Grasso. The agreement was that he would be paid for his expertise."

If you can say anything you want in a lawsuit, I'd like to try some romantic poetry, perhaps "Valentine" by John Fuller?

You know, lighten the mood in the introductory paragraphs up a little bit:

The things about you I appreciate may seem indelicate:
I’d like to find you in the shower
And chase the soap for half an hour.
I’d like to have you in my power and see you eyes dilate.
I’d like to have your back to scour
And other parts to lubricate.
Sometimes I feel it is my fate
To chase you screaming up a tower or make you cower
By asking you to differentiate Nietzsche from Schopenhauer.
I’d like to successfully guess your weight and win you at a fete.
I’d like to offer you a flower.

Denied and admitted in part -- admitted as to finding defendant in the shower, denied as to chasing said soap for "half an hour;" the remainder of this paragraph is denied, including the alleged offer of a flower, and defendant hereby demands strict proof thereof.

(I've seen crazier things in pleadings.)