“But you testified earlier that the notes often contain observations and judgments that are your own thoughts, did you not?”
“Yes, but the forged statements were not observations or judgments of mine at the time of the interview.”
“You also testified that you sometimes add things in later, after the client has left.”
“I didn’t add those final nineteen words. They were forged.”
“So you say. Is that your handwriting in those final sentences?”
“It looks like my handwriting. I might not even know it wasn’t my handwriting, except I know I never wrote those last words. That’s a forgery.”
“You’ll admit it looks like your handwriting?”
“It’s a decent forgery, I guess.”
“You insist that it’s a forgery. So who forged it?”
“I have no idea.”
“Why would anyone do that?”
“I can only speculate.”
“But do you have any personal knowledge? Can you enlighten us in some verifiable fashion as to who, why, when, where, anything at all?”
“Not of my own personal knowledge. However, I feel this is part of a pattern. In all three of the files there was some sort of interference prejudicial to the client. In the Vang case, these sentences were forged. In the Brandy Taylor matter, Cody Stinson received an anonymous call. In the Cruz matter, Ali Peck was called anonymously. Mr. Cruz has also now filed a blatantly false charge against me.”
“You may feel all sorts of things. But do you have any proof that there is someone out there trying to harm your clients?”
“The whole train of events. The theft of my files in the first place.”
“But that could just as easily have been a car thief who inadvertently rode off with your files, am I correct? For all you know?”
“But then the file contents were read and used. That’s more than a car theft.”
“Do you have any personal knowledge that the person who, as you put it, interfered in each case is the same person each time?”
“Makes sense to me,” Nina said. “Person or persons.”
“Okay, let’s look more closely at your theory that this is all part of a pattern. Now in the Brandy Taylor matter, Ms. Taylor told you, and you noted in the file, that she had evidence that Mr. Stinson had committed a murder. And I will remind you that Mr. Stinson testified that there was then a call to him stating exactly this damaging information.”
“Correct.”
“And in the Cruz matter, Mr. Cruz told you, and you noted in the file, that a witness named Ali Peck had information harmful to his custody case. And then let me represent to you and to the court that attorney Jeffrey Riesner will testify that he received a phone call informing him precisely about this harmful witness.”
“Yes.” Nina knew where Nolan was going, and that Jack couldn’t stop her. Helpless, she clenched her fists tight, holding on to her anger.
“So the file contents were read and reported to others, as you say.”
“Yes.”
“And isn’t it true that exactly the same thing happened in the third case? That your client Mr. Vang told you a secret, just as Ms. Taylor and Mr. Cruz did. You wrote it down. And just as in those two cases, Heritage was contacted, and the company was told the damaging information. Isn’t that the pattern?”
“No,” Nina said, continuing the struggle to keep her feelings off her face and out of her voice.
“This third party, whom none of us has identified, if this third party did all this, it would seem that his M.O. was to reveal secrets, not to make them up, wouldn’t it?”
“The Vang case was different. There was no secret in that case.”
“Mr. Vang didn’t break down and tell you that he had burned down his own store?”
“Absolutely not!”
“Mrs. Vang never said that?”
“No!”
“You didn’t learn that from someone and add it to your own notes?”
“No!”
“Who did burn down that store, then?”
“The police haven’t arrested anyone.”
“So Mr. Vang hasn’t been cleared?”
“He was never arrested. There’s no evidence that he burned his store down!”
“Oh, yes there is. There’s his confession in your file. And the little matter of his flight to Laos.”
Nina drew a long breath. “Even if he confessed to me, which he didn’t, it would be privileged information, inadmissible in any real court.”
“Strange to hear you say that, when it was your carelessness that allowed it to fall into the public eye, isn’t it?”
“Objection,” Jack said. “Argumentative.”
“Sustained. Let’s move on, Counsel.”
“Isn’t it true that there is no other suspect in connection with that fire and that Mr. Vang admitted to you he caused the fire?”
“Compound,” Jack said.
“Rephrase the question.” It was dizzying. Nolan was cross-examining Nina on direct examination. Nina struggled to get her bearings. She couldn’t anticipate what Nolan would ask next. The suspense in this box made strategic thinking impossible. Every moment, she felt the guillotine blade trembling above.
“Did Mr. Vang admit he caused the fire at the time of the interview?”
“No. No.”
“Did he deny it?”
“In so many words, yes.”
“Isn’t it true that you conspired with the Vangs to put in a fraudulent claim for them, knowing the arson was caused by Mr. Vang?”
“No, that is not true. Why would I put my career in jeopardy by doing something so unethical and criminal?”
“You’re a sole practitioner?”
“Yes.”
“Your income varies sometimes substantially from month to month?”
“Yes.”
“How much did you charge Mr. Vang for this work you did for him?” Nolan held up the exhibit that contained her billing to the Vangs.
“Two thousand four hundred dollars.”
“For writing a letter to the insurance company?”
“The case involved an extensive set of exhibits. I put in numerous hours helping the Vangs collate their receipts.”
“Couldn’t your secretary have done that? Collate receipts?”
“I preferred to do it.”
“Let me see, you were charging forty dollars an hour to collate receipts, so that would be-oh, here it is. Sixty hours. Sixty hours you put in to write this letter?”
“To meet with the clients, to help them assemble their claim, to negotiate, to write the claim letter, to follow up-yes. Sixty hours. In the end, the negotiated claim was for more than two hundred thousand dollars.”
“Isn’t it true that the price for your honor and integrity was two thousand four hundred dollars? That you were willing to commit a fraud for that amount, assuming you could hide behind the attorney-client privilege and no one would ever know your client had told you he did the arson?”
“Objection! Argumentative, compound, misstates the testimony, calls for a conclusion,” Jack said.
“It’s totally untrue,” Nina answered before the judge could rule, but her voice was choked. She could not disregard the cavalcade of feelings coursing through her, no matter how determined she felt. Such a pathetic amount of money it was they figured for the price of her soul. “I’m proud of my profession! I would never…!”
Judge Brock cut her off. “I will sustain the objection. Rephrase, Counsel.”
“That’s all right, Your Honor. I am finished with this witness.”
“Mr. McIntyre?”
“Ms. Reilly,” Jack said. “I just want this to be very clear for the record. Are you positive you never wrote those last nineteen words?”
“Positive.”
“You had no intent to defraud the insurance company, and so far as you know, Mr. Vang did not commit any arson?”
“That’s right.”
> “You spent sixty hours working on this claim and obtained a settlement of two hundred and ten thousand dollars for your clients?”
“Yes.”
“Let the record reflect that Ms. Reilly’s fee amounted to one point one percent of the recovery,” Jack said. “I have nothing further of this witness.”
“We will adjourn. Court will resume at three.”
Freed, Nina got out of the box and walked tall back to Jack’s table. Gathering up documents from the other table, Nolan gave her a cynical smile. Jack took Nina by the arm. “Out we go,” he said.
The elevator arrived, jammed with people. Jack pushed forward and stuffed her into an invisible gap.
“How did I do?” she asked Jack as they ate sandwiches across the street.
“You sounded tremulous, but Brock will make allowances for that,” Jack said.
“I didn’t feel scared, Jack, if that’s what you’re thinking. My anger shook me. I had no idea how difficult it would be testifying. I wanted to leap off the stand and land a good one-two on Nolan’s nose. I kept seeing those dumb glasses under my high heels, broken on the floor. I bet her eyes look weak without them.”
“You okay now?”
“Yeah.”
“Chin up.”
After the break, Nolan called Sandy to the stand. She sat down in the box, arranging herself calmly. Dignified and impeccable, she wore her standards, a denim blue skirt and a white blouse, and had spiked her upswept black hair with a turquoise stick. Nina knew she had never testified in court before but wasn’t worried about Sandy. She could take Nolan down with a sneeze.
“So you took the new file that was handed to you and affixed the Client Intake Interview form to the back of the file?” Nolan asked.
“Yes. Like I always do.”
“Did you read the notes?” Judge Brock leaned in closer, wanting to hear the answer to this one.
“Might have,” Sandy said.
“What’s she doing!” Nina whispered. Jack shook his head slightly. They were both astounded. Sandy had told them several times that she had read the notes.
“Might have? Did you or did you not?”
“I might have.”
“You mean you have forgotten whether you read them?”
“Don’t put words in my mouth,” Sandy said. “I’m the only one that does that.”
“Well, what do you mean, ‘might have’?”
“Maybe I did,” Sandy said. “I often did.”
“It was your practice to read the intake notes?”
“I often did.”
Clearly unnerved by Sandy’s attitude, Nolan handed Sandy the exhibit and had her read the notes. “Did you read these before or not?” she demanded. “You must answer to the best of your recollection.”
“I may well have,” Sandy said, nodding her head at the file. “I usually did.”
“Your Honor, I request that this witness be compelled to answer the question.”
“I think she’s doing the best she can,” Brock said. “Ms. Whitefeather, did you have any knowledge from that file or otherwise that Ms. Reilly knew her client had committed an arson?”
“No, sir. If I read these notes at the time, and it was my practice to do that, these last two sentences weren’t there. I do know that. Because I would have talked to her about it if they were. And she never would have filed the claim. Never. She’s one of the honest ones.”
“Request that whole statement be stricken,” Nolan said, glowering.
“She’s honest,” Sandy said again. “Unlike some I have known.”
“Maybe I shouldn’t have asked the question,” Judge Brock said. “Sorry, Counsel. But her answer stands.”
25
A T LAST, A break.
Nina got into the elevator for the sixth floor with Jack with her head high and her self-confidence at an all-time low. Her entire life had been served up on a plate to prejudiced critics who made their livings feeding off the failures of their colleagues. Gayle Nolan didn’t hide her intolerance or feign objectivity. She hadn’t been acting; she felt disdain for Nina. Contempt, even! Nina’s colleague, who didn’t respect her, who even wanted to see her on her knees!
Although Judge Brock was less overt, she had a definite impression that her very presence in his courtroom embarrassed him, as if, in his view, only the worst lawyers fell this far down the system. He lumped her in with the dregs.
And Jack, standing beside her, humming a little tune? What did she want from him at this low point? Reassurance that she was a good person, this was what she wanted. But Jack gave her what she herself gave her clients: objectivity, strategy, a push forward. He assessed her like he assessed steak in the market. He had other worries besides her emotional well-being.
She felt like running right out those doors onto Howard Street, getting into her truck, and driving-where? She would never again look at a stricken client’s face without remembering this day.
Assuming she ever had a client again.
Their turn had come. With Kao Vang unavailable in the hills of Laos, they had only two witnesses for the defense on the Vang count, Mrs. Vang, who wouldn’t be arriving until later, and the handwriting expert, Lyuba Gleb, who was waiting for them as they came out of the elevator.
“Hello, there,” she said, shaking hands with Jack. “How is it going?”
“Just fine,” Jack said.
“You look so nice today, Jack,” Mrs. Gleb said. “I had no idea.” A chic woman of a certain age, she wore a neatly fitted Chanel suit. The flaring, emphatic eyebrows gave her the look of character she wore so gracefully. Her Roman nose and lips were accentuated by a faint mustache, and it all added up to a formidable, smiling, relaxed lady.
“You look ready for anything they can throw at you,” Jack said.
“What is to throw?” Mrs. Gleb said. “I can only tell the truth. Although, of course, it is a truth about art. They have their own expert all ready to refute what I say, isn’t that right?”
“Yes, Dr. Harvey Pell. I don’t see him around.”
“Look for a bright spot in any room. He seeks the limelight. You should see his signature, two lines under it like he is Napoleon. So they have brought him all the way from Chicago. He is competent, so I was surprised to read his opinion.” She turned to Nina. “Don’t worry, darling, I am right and I will make the judge see this.”
“Mrs. Gleb. You are a questioned-document examiner?” Jack asked.
“Yes. My specialties are handwriting identification, disputed handwriting, anonymous letters, and graffiti. I perform infrared photo work of all sorts. I am an expert on ink identification and on nineteenth-century paper. I have performed this work since 1972.”
“What is your educational background?”
“I received my baccalaureate in chemistry from the Sorbonne in 1970. I was employed by the Sureté in Paris to assist in certain analyses of papers in a war-crimes case. That is where I received my on-the-job training. I was sent to the U.S. to take part in several seminars on handwriting identification during the seventies. I continued working at the Sureté and became head of the department investigating questioned documents in 1978.”
“Please describe your experience.”
“I served as head of the department from 1978 to 1984. During this time I often testified in the French court system. I began consulting for Interpol in the area of check forgeries. In 1985 I accepted a position as chief document examiner with the Bank of America and oversaw all of its forensic documents cases for the following ten years. I then went into independent consulting and most especially assisting police departments all over the country in questioned-documents cases.”
“In which courts have you previously qualified as an expert witness in this area?”
“I have qualified and testified as a questioned-document examiner in various courts in Douglas County and Washoe County, Nevada; in Queens and Manhattan counties, New York; in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties in California during t
he past five years.”
“Have you-”
“I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the International Association for Identification, and I am a member of and certified by the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.”
“And are you-”
“In addition to my consulting work, I have taught numerous seminars for bank and insurance examiners all over the country.”
“Request that this witness be qualified as an expert in the area of examination of questioned documents,” Jack said.
Nolan barely looked up. “No objection.”
Jack picked up his legal pad. “During November of last year, were you requested by me to examine a certain original document and to provide your expert opinion as to whether the last two sentences of that document were written by the same person who authored the rest of the document?”
“Yes, you retained me for that purpose.”
“Directing your attention to Exhibit 18, is this the document I gave you to examine?”
Mrs. Gleb took the exhibit. From a pocket she pulled out a small box and from the box she took a small magnifying eyepiece, which she appeared to screw into her eye. She bent to the document, and suddenly, all her animation froze on the task. Even her breathing halted. She wasn’t kidding around.
She lifted her head and rejoined them in court. “Yes, this appears to be the original document. I recognize the writing. I know it as well as my own at this moment.”
“All right. And did you examine the document during the month of December and thereafter?”
“Yes. It was obtained for me by you, and I examined it at my lab. I returned it to you in early March.”
“And what did you understand to be the purpose of your examination?”
“Well, as you said earlier, to find out if this attorney, Ms. Reilly, who did write all of the document up to the last two sentences, also wrote the final nineteen words.”
“Please describe the steps you took in examining the document.”
“First, I examined the ink content. I had it analyzed by a lab that I have used for years, Allied Laboratories. Their report came back in January.”
Unfit to Practice Page 37
