U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of New York
MKM:MKP/TH/MJL/KMT
271 Cadman Plaza East
F. #2017R01840
Brooklyn, New York 11201
March 15, 2019 By ECF The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis United States District Judge United States District Court 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: United States v. Keith Raniere, et al. Criminal Docket No. 18-204 (S-1) (NGG) (VMS) Dear Judge Garaufis:
Pursuant to the Court’s order and i
n advance of the anticipated hearings pursuant to United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir. 1982), the government respectfully submits the enclosed proposed examination. Where a proposed question is only
relevant to either Clare Bronfman or Keith Raniere, the relevant defendant’s initials are noted
in parentheses. The proposed questions also address one additional aspect of the potential
conflict regarding Teny Geragos and Mark Geragos’s familial rela
tionship that the government did not previously raise. Namely, Mark Geragos may be incentivized to advise Bronfman to remain in this case, even if it is not in her best interests, so that Raniere and
Raniere’s counsel (including Mark Geragos daughter, Teny Geragos) can continue to benefit
from fees Bronfman is presumably paying for joint defense efforts. As the Court is aware,
Raniere’s lega
l fees have been paid thus far by a defense trust primarily funded by Bronfman, which is almost depleted. Based on an inquiry by the Court,
Raniere’s attorneys
have represented that once the fund is depleted they will continue to represent Raniere at no cost.
As long as Bronfman remains in the case, Raniere and Raniere’s counsel (including Mark Geragos’s daughter), continue to benefit from Bronfman’s payment of expenses related
to a joint defense without
Raniere’s counsel
having to deplete the defense fund or incur the cost themselves as counsel. Therefore, Mark Geragos would have an incentive to advise Bronfman to remain in the case even if it were not in
Bronfman’s
best interest for the benefit
of his daughter and his daughter’s client
, Raniere.
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 435 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4438
2 The government respectfully requests that the Court advise the government of
the nature of defendant Bronfman’s
ex parte submission on March 12, 2019, which the government understands related to the potential conflict raised by the government so that the government may respond, if appropriate. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney By: /s/ Moira Kim Penza Moira Kim Penza Tanya Hajjar Mark J. Lesko Kevin M. Trowel Assistant U.S. Attorneys (718) 254-7000 cc: Counsel of Record (by ECF)
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 435 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4439
Proposed Curcio Examination United States v. Keith Raniere et al., 18-CR-204 (NGG) (A)
Potential Conflict of Interest Posed By Familial Relationship Between Attorneys for Co-Defendants 1.
How did you choose Mark Geragos as your counsel? (CWB) 2.
W
ere any of Keith Raniere’s attorney
s involved in your choosing Mark Geragos as your counsel? (CWB) 3.
Have you received any inducements, promises, or threats with regard to hiring Marc Geragos? (CWB) 4.
Was Keith Raniere or any of Keith Raniere’s attorneys involved in your
decision to terminate Susan Necheles? (CWB) 5.
Have you received any inducements, promises, or threats with regard to terminating Susan Necheles? (CWB) 6.
Your prior counsel stated that you will not be paying any additional legal fees for Keith Raniere once the trust is depleted, is that still true? (CWB) 7.
To the extent you and Raniere jointly incur legal fees (for example the cost of private investigators, briefs that your attorneys draft but that Raniere joins, the cost of a discovery vendor, etc.), do you pay those in full yourself, separately than from the defense fund? (CWB) 8.
Are you satisfied with the services of your attorneys thus far in the case? (CWB) 9.
You previously stated you are satisfied with the services of your attorneys thus far; has anything changed since the last Curcio hearing? (KAR) 10.
Do you understand that, in every criminal case, including this one, the defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel whose loyalty to him or her is undivided, and who is not subject to any force or consideration that might in any way intrude upon the
attorney’s loyalty to
his or
her client’s
interests? 11.
The New York Rules of Professional Conduct that lawyers in this state must adhere to recognizes that a familial relationship, like the father-daughter relationship between your lawyer and a lawyer for [Keith Raniere/Clare Bronfman],
“may” create a “significant risk” of a conflict
that would undermine your right to conflict-free counsel in this criminal matter.
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 435-1 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4440