February 6, 2024

William Odom Promoted to Counsel of ZFZ Law

Zweiback, Fiset and Zalduendo LLP is proud to announce the promotion of William Odom to Counsel of ZFZ.  Will is an incredibly skilled litigator who serves his clients throughout all phases of litigation, including appeals.

Will’s successful career includes victories for various clients in multiple industries, including technology, film and television, real estate, finance, and cosmetics.  He is known for his strong writing skills and his intuitive mastery of facts and arguments.

Will graduated magna cum laude from the University of Texas School of Law, where he served as an Articles Editor for the Texas Law Review, and earned the prestigious title Grand Chancellor for his academic success.  After law school, Will served as a law clerk to the Hon. Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Will is also an active member of the LGBTQ+ Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. 

Congratulations, Will! We are excited to have you grow with us!

October 3, 2023

CBS News – Michael Zweiback on Bankman-Fried Facing Trial After Crash of FTX

“Prosecutors are going to say, ‘Look at where the money went and how it was spent,'” said Michael Zweiback, co-founder of the law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo. “This case is less about complicated investments and all about garden-variety fraud.”

Michael Zweiback, criminal defense attorney at ZFZ Law and former federal prosecutor, joins ‘CBS News’ to comment on the prosecution’s strategy in the Bankman-Fried trial.

October 2, 2023

DailyMail – Rachel Fiset Discusses Kohberger’s Attempt to Undermine FBI DNA Evidence

Rachel Fiset, a managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, joins “DailyMail” to discuss Kohberger’s attempt to undermine FBI DNA evidence linking him to Idaho murders.

‘The DNA evidence is pretty damning,’ Fiset told DailyMail.com. ‘It’s so unlikely to be someone else. That’s why the defense team has to pick at the method used to find the DNA evidence, so the jury might feel like this family tree method might not work and so you should ignore the results that followed from there.’

September 25, 2023

Vulture – Rachel Fiset on Whether Russell Brand can be Charged over Sexual-Assault Allegations

Rachel Fiset, a managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, joins “Vulture” to discuss whether Russell Brand can be charged over sexual-assault allegations.

“The statute of limitations for reporting to the police and for the police and DA to investigate sexual crimes, including rape, has been lifted so that survivors of sexual assault can report the crimes many years after they actually happened,” said Rachel Fiset, co-founder of Los Angeles–based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP. “It’s indefinite and it may be brought at any time after the event occurs for rape.”

August 17, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Kohberger’s Defense Team Casting Doubt on DNA Evidence to Confuse Jury

Rachel Fiset, a managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, joins “Newsweek” to discuss Kohberger’s defense team casting doubt on DNA Evidence to confuse the jury.

Criminal Defense attorney Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek and said the defense hopes to “confuses the jury regarding the issue of DNA science” and its reliability in this case.

“The defense is doing what they can to discredit the DNA evidence that puts Kohberger at the scene of the crime,” Fiset said.

“Casting doubt on the methodology used to collect the DNA, as well as the reliability of the DNA evidence, is the best manner they have to do this.

“The defense expert will likely testify to the jury regarding the potential of less reliable results when tracing genealogy through DNA as opposed to direct DNA sampling. The prosecution, however, will obtain a competing expert to debunk the defense expert’s opinion.

“The best-case scenario for the defense is that the expert testimony on each side confuses the jury regarding the issue of DNA science such that the confusion raises some doubt regarding the damning DNA evidence against Kohberger.”

August 17, 2023

The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 Recognizes Rachel Fiset and Michael Zweiback

Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP is pleased to announce that Michael Zweiback and Rachel Fiset have been included in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

  • Rachel L. Fiset – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
  • C. Michael Zweiback – Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide
to legal excellence.

“For more than 40 years, the rigorous methodology of Best Lawyers has ensured the integrity and esteem of our legal recognitions,” said Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer. “It is with great pleasure that we continue to provide potential clients with the pinnacle measurement of credibility through our Best Lawyers awards as they search for counsel.” Best Lawyers has earned the respect of the profession, the media and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals. Its first international list was published in
2006 and since then has grown to provide lists in more than 75 countries.

Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America® list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers based on professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

About Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe. Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Our awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers. Those who receive high peer reviews undergo a thorough verification process to make sure they are currently still in private practice. Only then can these top lawyers be recognized by Best Lawyers.

August 17, 2023

Hannah Friedman Named to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® 2024

Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP would like to congratulate Hannah Friedman for being recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America®:

Hannah Friedman – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® recognizes associates and other lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.

“The unparalleled methodology of Best Lawyers ensures the value and esteem of our legal
rankings through both our traditional awards and our expanded ‘Ones to Watch’
accolades,” said Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer. “Clients trust Best Lawyers as a credible
and reliable way to identify the most elite lawyers, and it is with great pride that we
continue to provide this valued service in the country.” Lawyers recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® are divided by geographic region and practice areas. Candidates can only be considered for one recognition at a time, either “Ones to Watch” or traditional Best Lawyers awards. “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” is not a seed list to “The Best Lawyers” and all hopeful candidates must be nominated, vetted by their peers and undergo an authentication process before they are recognized by Best Lawyers. Lawyers are not required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, recognition by Best Lawyers is considered a singular distinction.

About Best Lawyers
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers awards are published in leading local, regional and national publications across the globe. Lawyers who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized Best Lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Our awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers. Those who receive high peer reviews undergo a thorough verification process to
make sure they are currently still in private practice. Only then can these top lawyers be
recognized by Best Lawyers.

August 3, 2023

NewsWeek – Rachel Fiset on the Difficulties Shiver’s Team will Face due to Differences Between the Local Bahama Judiciary System and the U.S.

Rachel Fiset, a managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, joined “NewsWeek” to share thoughts on the difficulties Shiver’s defense team will face.

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek about the difficulties Shiver’s defense team will face due to the differences between the local judiciary system and that in the U.S.

“Bahamian law allows for prosecution of the conspiracy if there is an agreement or an act in furtherance of a common criminal purpose. [This] is easier to prove than most United States jurisdictions that require both an agreement and an action in furtherance of a common criminal purpose,” Fiset said when asked how strong a case the prosecution could have in a trial.

“The standard [of] evidence gathered thus far may allow the prosecution to show that the intent to murder existed along with the agreement to do so.”

She also noted that while Shiver is an American citizen, the alleged crime took place in the Bahamas and a trial in that country is likely as investigators from the country gather more evidence.

“Lindsay Shiver is going to face a criminal justice system she is less familiar with, where she may be subject to harsher statutory schemes under which she is prosecuted and harsher penalties,” Fiset added.

“As she is not a citizen of the Bahamas—and a flight risk—she has been placed under monitoring and cannot leave the country to return to the United States in the near future.”

June 15, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Kohberger’s Lawyers Asking for more Time to Respond to Request for Alibi

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, the managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek and reflected on the latest development in the Kohberger case.

“Kohberger’s attorneys are deciding whether or not to tell the court Kohberger has an alibi for the period of time during which the murders took place, and if so, what witnesses and other evidence can support that alibi,” Fiset said.

“Kohberger has asked for an extension of the time to provide that alibi so his attorneys can review all of the evidence against him, which could allow them to create a timeline of events that place Kohberger in specific places but not contradict credible evidence that may place him elsewhere.

“In layman’s terms, this request sounds like Kohberger’s attorneys either do not believe their client’s potential alibi or they do not have one and need to work to develop that timeline free of conflicting witness statements and evidence placing him elsewhere.

“For instance, if Kohberger states he was in Washington at a specific time that evening, his attorneys want to be sure that the state’s evidence does not have pictures of his car in Idaho at the same time.”

Fiset said the evidence gathered by the state may make the job of Kohberger’s legal team very difficult.

“The decision of what defense to put forward in this case will be difficult and whether or not to put forth an alibi is the first step to developing Kohberger’s story,” Fiset said.

“It may be impossible for Kohberger to have a credible alibi with the evidence gathered by the state, and if that’s the case, his team does not want to be stuck in a position they cannot support at trial.

“If there is no alibi, however, there is a stronger chance of conviction as his defenses will be limited going forward.”

June 5, 2023

Embezzlement Charges in California

Embezzlement charges can occur in a variety of industries in scenarios. A common situation is that of an employee-employer relationship, such as where an executive misappropriates company funds for his or her own use, but even lower-level employees such as cashiers and customer service representatives can be charged with embezzlement. Additionally, embezzlement charges can happen in the public sectors, non-profit organizations and clubs, investment schemes, and even between family members and friends, as the key aspect of embezzlement is simply that one person misappropriates property entrusted to him by another. 

California Embezzlement Violations and Penalties

California Penal Code §503 provides a simple and straightforward definition of embezzlement as follows: “Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted.” 

Embezzlement is a form of larceny, which is more comprehensively defined by California Penal Code §484, stating in part: “Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by a false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property…is guilty of theft.” 

The California Criminal Jury Instructions relating to the state crime of embezzlement provide further detail on what a person under investigation and/or prosecution for embezzlement must defend against to avoid criminal penalties. To prove a defendant is guilty of embezzlement, state prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:

  • An owner [or the owner’s agent] entrusted (his/her) property to the defendant;
  • The owner [or owner’s agent] did so because (he/she) trusted the defendant;
  • The defendant fraudulently (converted/used) that property for (his/her) own benefit; AND
  • When the defendant (converted/used) the property, (he/she) intended to deprive the owner of its use. 

The jury instructions go on to explain that, “A person acts fraudulently when he or she takes undue advantage of another person or causes a loss to that person by breaching a duty, trust or confidence.” 

The criminal penalties for felony embezzlement of property valued over $950 pursuant to California state law is up to three years in prison. Embezzlement of property valued at $950 or less can result in misdemeanor charges with the potential of up to six months in jail. 

Federal Embezzlement Violations and Penalties

While most criminal charges related to embezzlement are typically pursued under state law, there are a number of federal laws relating to embezzlement as well. Federal laws related to embezzlement include the following:

  • Embezzlement of public property, funds, or records: Pursuant to 18 US Code § 641, it is a crime to convert any federal property for your own use, or to receive property from another that belongs to the federal government. A person found to violate this section can face up to ten years in prison, unless the property is under $1000 in value, in which case the maximum sentence is one year in prison. 
  • Embezzlement of tools for counterfeiting purposes: Pursuant to 18 US Code § 642, a person who takes any tool used to print currency, bonds, stamps, or similar items can face up to ten years in prison. 
  • Embezzlement of public money: Pursuant to 18 US Code § 643, an officer, employee, or agent of the federal government who receives and retains public funds not intended for his or her personal use faces up to one year in prison. Similarly, pursuant to 18 US Code § 644, any banker that unlawfully receives public money also faces up to one year in prison. 
  • Improper use of public funds: Pursuant to 18 US Code § 653, a disbursing officer of the federal government who misuses public funds for his personal use faces up to one year in prison. 
  • Embezzlement by a bank officer or employee: Pursuant to 18 US Code § 642, an officer, director, agent, or employee of, or connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, depository institution holding company, a national bank, insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) [1] of the Federal Reserve Act, or a receiver of a national bank, insured bank, branch, agency, or organization or any agent or employee of the receiver, or a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of a Federal Reserve Agent or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who misuses public funds (including embezzlement) faces up to 30 years in prison. 

Defenses to Embezzlement Charges

Embezzlement investigations and prosecutions are generally quite fact-specific, and the state or federal government charging body typically needs to show a specific level of intent in securing a conviction, e.g., that a defendant “knowingly” and/or “willfully” converted the property at issue to his or her own use in an improper manner without the consent or knowledge of the true owner of the property. 

Thus, there may be any number of fact-specific defenses to an embezzlement charge. First, the charging body would have to prove that the property was indeed converted by the defendant. Beyond that, there may be significant questions of whether the property was taken for legitimate business purposes, or whether there was consent to take the property. 

With embezzlement charges, there may be questions of whether the defendant indeed had the intent necessary to commit embezzlement, as opposed to, for example, mistakenly converting the property while believing it is legitimate to do so or simply holding the property temporarily without the intent to deprive the true owner of their ownership rights. The California jury instructions on embezzlement specifically indicate that a good faith belief that one is acting with authorization to use the property is a defense and that this may be the case even where the belief was “unreasonable” (although the jury instructions go on to state that a “completely unreasonable” belief may not, in fact, be a “good faith” belief). 

Additionally, the applicable statute of limitations to an embezzlement charge may make prosecution of the embezzlement improper. There is a general 4-year statute of limitations for theft crimes, although it is important to note that there is no statute of limitations for prosecuting embezzlement of public funds in California. 

As with any criminal offense, any evidence used in the prosecution of an embezzlement charge must have been lawfully obtained. Thus, a defendant should work with counsel to determine whether, for example, evidence may be excluded due to having been the product of an improper search and seizure or an improper police interrogation.

Conclusion 

The time to seek experienced counsel from a skilled white-collar defense attorney is at the first signs of a potential government investigation, enforcement action, or prosecution. Often, the first steps in responding to a potential government proceeding are the most critical in setting the course for an ultimate outcome that defends one’s interests, reputation, and, in some cases, freedom. Contact our office to speak with an experienced white-collar defense attorney regarding your situation today.

June 2, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Whether Van Der Sloot can be Charged for Murder of Natalee Holloway Without a Body

Criminal Defense attorney Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo spoke to Newsweek and said that despite a body not having been found, van der Sloot could still be accused and face charges of homicide.

Speaking about Altez’s comments, Fiset said: “It is simply not true that van der Sloot cannot be charged without authorities finding a body.

“Plenty of cases are charged without the location of a body, for instance, look at the recent murder charges Brian Walshe faces for his wife’s murder or the recent conviction of Paul Flores for the 1996 murder of Kristin Smart where no body was ever found.”

Fiset did note additional evidence would help strengthen a charge against van der Sloot, however.

She added: “In the case of Natalee Holloway it will be difficult to charge van der Sloot with her murder without some new piece of evidence against van der Sloot because the case is so old—but that new evidence certainly does not need to be a body.

“Van der Sloot is being extradited for wire fraud and extortion charges but that does not mean that new evidence connecting him to her murder may not result from the investigation into his newest alleged crimes. If something new is uncovered, it very well could lead to murder charges.”

June 2, 2023

Trade Secret Theft – Protection of Trade Secrets

Whether it’s the recipe for Coca-Cola – which has purportedly only been known by a select few since 1891 – or the source code for a brand new iPhone video game app, the protection of trade secrets has been a central bedrock of our capitalist economy, where ideas and knowledge can be as potent an economic force as capital and brand awareness. 

There are numerous areas of intellectual property law that exist to protect one’s work from being used by another – including copyright and trademark law – and one area of IP law where criminal and civil law intersect is that of trade secret protection. In California, the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (or “CUTSA”) provides civil consequences to those who are found to have stolen trade secrets, while under federal law, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (or “EEA”) makes it a federal crime to steal trade secrets, while also allowing for a cause of action in a federal lawsuit related to the alleged theft of trade secrets. 

What qualifies as a trade secret?

Pursuant to CUTSA, a “trade secret” means “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

The EEA provides a somewhat similar definition for a trade secret, indicating that the term “means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if – (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.” 

Thus, both CUTSA and EEA provide a very broad definition of what might qualify as a trade secret to essentially include any type of information with economic value, but that the owner has taken means to keep secret. Thus, while the McDonald’s golden arches logo has significant value, it is not a trade secret as it is well known and certainly not kept a secret. On the other hand, a specific recipe that McDonald’s uses in a new food product could be a trade secret if significant efforts are made to keep that recipe a secret. 

Following from the above, a commonly used defense in the context of trade secret civil and criminal litigation is that the “trade secret” allegedly stolen either did not have independent economic value and/or that it was not being kept secret, i.e. the alleged owner of the information did not take reasonable means to keep it secret.  

What qualifies as improper misappropriation of a trade secret? 

Pursuant to EEA, “misappropriation” in the context of trade secret theft means:

  • acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
  • disclosure of the use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent who
    • Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
    • At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was derived through improper means or where there are circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the trade secret. 

The EEA further explains that “improper means” used to acquire a trade secret includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage…” but does NOT include “reverse engineering” or “independent derivation.” The CUTSA contains substantially similar definitions of both misappropriation and improper means in the context of trade secret theft. 

Thus, here, potential defenses to a claim of trade secret theft could include a lack of knowledge on the part of the person who acquired the trade secret that it was acquired by improper means. 

Penalties for Trade Secret Theft

In a civil lawsuit under CUTSA, a plaintiff may seek damages for unjust enrichment, lost profits, and/or a “reasonable royalty” if neither damages nor unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation of the trade secret is reasonably provable.  Lost profits generally relate to the actual losses in profit suffered by an individual or company when their trade secrets are stolen, while unjust enrichment refers to the ill-gotten gains the defending party obtains by the use of the trade secret. The EEA similarly awards damages in civil lawsuits for both actual losses and unjust enrichment by the offending party. Additionally, injunctive relief may be sought to prevent the person who acquired the trade secret from further using the trade secret and to preserve the secrecy of the information. 

Where federal prosecutors seek criminal sanctions pursuant to the EEA, a criminal defendant can face up to 15 years in prison and a $5,000,000 fine. 

Conclusion 

The time to seek experienced counsel from a skilled white-collar defense attorney is at the first signs of a potential government investigation, enforcement action, prosecution, or civil action related to white-collar activities. Often, the first steps in responding to a potential government proceeding are the most critical in setting the course for an ultimate outcome that defends one’s interests, reputation, and, in some cases, freedom. Contact our office to speak with an experienced white-collar defense attorney regarding your situation today.

June 1, 2023

Upcoding & Unbundling: Healthcare Medicare Fraud

Many physicians and healthcare organizations rely on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements as a primary source of revenue. However, such medical providers must deal with governmental scrutiny relating to their reimbursement practices, and regulators and law enforcement agencies contribute vast amounts of resources to investigating and prosecuting those providers suspected to be involved in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. According to government publications, tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are lost each year to Medicare fraud alone. Two of the key types of fraud that governmental authorities have cracked down on over the years are so-called “upcoding” and “unbundling.” 

The healthcare defense attorneys of Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP are experienced in providing robust defense to physicians, other healthcare professionals, and healthcare organizations in state and federal investigations, criminal inquiries, and civil litigation related to alleged upcoding and unbundling in the context of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

What Is Upcoding?

Medicare provides reimbursement for health care services using “Evaluation and Management” codes, or often referred to as E&M codes. Upcoding occurs when a physician or hospital submits an inaccurate code for the type of services rendered, such that the state or federal government is billed for a higher amount than what would otherwise be charged for the actual services rendered. 

Examples of upcoding include:

  • Billing for a longer period of time of care than what was actually provided (e.g., billing for 60 minutes of care when only 15 minutes of care was provided)
  • Billing for services that are different than what was actually provided
  • Billing for a more experienced physician’s services when a less experienced (or even non-licensed) individual provided the actual services 
  • Billing for medical services that were not actually needed by the patient 
  • Billing for Medicare-covered services when the actual services provided are not covered by Medicare

What Is Unbundling?

Unbundling is another form of Medicare and Medicaid fraud. While upcoding involves a disconnect between what services are actually provided and what services the health care provider seeks reimbursement for, unbundling does not necessarily mean that the services and goods billed for were not actually provided. 

Instead, with unbundling, a healthcare provider bills the state or federal government for separate services or goods that should have been billed together, or in other words “bundled.” According to the Office of the Inspector General, unbundling “is the practice of a physician billing for multiple components of a service that must be included in a single fee…For example, if dressings and instruments are included in a fee for a minor procedure, the provider may not also bill separately for the dressings and instruments.” 

Penalties for Upcoding, Unbundling and Similar Fraudulent Act

Healthcare fraud cases require a significant amount of investigative work on the part of state and federal law authorities, and, when they are pursued, the fines and penalties pursued are often similarly significant. It is not uncommon for individual physicians to be required to pay penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for Medicare fraud. 

Under California law, it is a criminal offense to knowingly make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent claim for health care benefit with the intent to defraud. When the claim or amount at issue is $950 or less, a person faces six months in a county jail and/or a $1000 fine. When the claim or amount at issue is over $950, a person can face felony charges, with up to five years in a county jail and a fine of $50,000 or double the amount of the fraudulent charges, whichever is greater.  

Under federal law, a person can be charged criminally with violating the False Claims Act for submitting a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government, which includes claims involving upcoding and/or unbundling. This can result in a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of $25,000. 

Additionally, a private individual with knowledge of upcoding or unbundling fraud can bring a civil lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act or the California False Claims Act, and the federal or California state government may join in prosecuting the lawsuit. Such lawsuits can result in significant fines as well as damages totalling three times the amount of the fraudulent charges. Because private individuals stand to collect between 15 and 30 percent of these damages as a reward for bringing an FCA or CFCA case, persons such as nurses, billing specialists, physicians and even executives with knowledge of such fraudulent activities are incentivized to come forward with these claims.  

Conclusion 

Healthcare providers and professionals face unique and complex legal risks, and our attorneys have the legal experience and industry knowledge to counsel and protect clients in all aspects of the industry. It is important to respond properly to legal risks as soon as they arise.  Our attorneys are here to provide counsel and representation to mitigate risk at the earliest possible moment. Contact our office to speak with an experienced healthcare defense attorney regarding your situation today.

June 1, 2023

Chambers USA Recognizes Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP as a Leading Firm in White Collar Defense and Government Investigations

Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, LLP is proud to be ranked by Chambers and Partners as a Band 2 Specialist Firm in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations in the 2023 edition of the “Chambers USA” guide.  

Chambers recognizes the Firm’s high caliber of legal work and writes in its review, “Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo enjoys a fast-rising reputation for its capabilities in trial work, alongside a robust pedigree in regulatory and internal investigations. The firm is held in particularly high esteem for its representation of individual defendants, including public officials and corporate executives.”

Chambers quoted ZFZ’s clients regarding both the Firm and its attorneys. “Their practice is stellar. Clients get top-class litigators that you need in high-stakes litigation.”

Clients also praise the Firm’s efficiency, intelligence, and passion. “I appreciate they’re very efficient, very smart, and they all really enjoy the practice of law – so they’re very passionate, thorough, and skilled.”

The firm’s complete Chambers rankings and full profile are available here.

About Chambers USA

Chambers & Partners, the UK-based publisher of Chambers USA, conducts independent research across the globe delivering detailed rankings and insight into the world’s leading lawyers. Chambers rankings are the definitive mark of excellence across the legal industry. The rankings are the culmination of thousands of interviews with lawyers and clients, carried out by an experienced team of researchers, assessing a firm’s client service, professional conduct and achievements, depth, and technical legal abilities. Learn more about the rankings and methodology here.

May 5, 2023

What Does It Mean If I Am a Grand Jury Target in California?

Grand juries are an important part of the criminal legal justice system in both federal court and California state criminal courts. Grand juries work behind closed doors and so, for many, can be an opaque and particularly intimidating aspect of the criminal process. Whether you are a target, subject, or witness involved in a state or federal grand jury proceeding, you are strongly encouraged to speak with experienced criminal defense counsel to assess your situation and assert your rights. 

When Grand Juries Are Used in California Criminal Cases

California is one of a limited number of states that continue to use grand juries in bringing criminal charges against an individual, and such charges in California may be brought through either a preliminary hearing at which a judge may determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge you, or through the use of a grand jury which will make this same determination via an indictment. 

Most California state criminal charges are brought during a preliminary hearing without the use of a grand jury, but grand juries are frequently utilized in particular types of cases. For example, criminal charges that are brought against a public official – such as those relating to public corruption – are often pursued via a grand jury. Additionally, grand juries may be utilized where there are other factors that might make a grand jury preferable to a preliminary hearing, such as where children are to serve as witnesses in the case or there is high public interest in the case. 

When Grand Juries Are Used in Federal Courts

Grand juries are more frequently utilized in federal cases, as the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or “otherwise infamous crime” unless on presentment or indictment by a grand jury.  Generally, this means most federal felony charges are typically pursued via the grand jury process.

What Grand Juries Do

Grand juries, like trial juries, are composed of ordinary citizens selected from a wide variety of backgrounds to hear evidence and make determinations. Specifically, grand juries listen to and examine evidence presented by prosecutors and witnesses and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to criminally indict an individual or organization. Such evidence can include live testimony, documents, photos and videos, and other physical evidence. Grand juries meet over an extended period of time and will typically hear information related to numerous cases. 

Unlike a jury at a criminal trial, a grand jury operates in secret in that the proceedings are not open to the public or to the targets of the investigation, although a target may be invited to attend a grand jury proceeding. As such, a criminal target does not have the opportunity to present their own evidence or cross-examine witnesses. Grand juries may also hear evidence that would not otherwise be admissible in a criminal trial. After hearing the evidence presented by prosecutors, the grand jury will then vote on whether sufficient evidence to issue an indictment exists. At the federal level, 23 members serve on a grand jury, and only 12 votes are needed to indict a target. 

What Is a Grand Jury Target?

A grand jury target is an individual or organization that may be criminally charged by the grand jury via an indictment after the grand jury hears the evidence related to potential wrongdoing by the target. A target is not a criminal defendant because no charges have yet been issued while the grand jury examines the evidence and deliberates. However, a person who is a target is presumed by prosecutors to be a potential defendant in a criminal case as the prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence linking that person with the commission of a crime and is seeking to make that person a criminal defendant via the grand jury process. 

A grand jury target may receive a “target letter” from prosecutors either in the course of grand jury proceedings or prior to any such proceedings. The letter may be requesting that the target attend a grand jury proceeding or meet with prosecutors. Targets of grand jury proceedings should contact experienced criminal defense counsel at the earliest possible moment to discuss the proceedings and to ensure that they are asserting all relevant rights, including exercising their right against self-incrimination. 

An individual may also be designated as a “subject” of a criminal proceeding rather than a target. A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness in that the government believes the subject may have relevant evidence to provide, but has not yet determined whether that person may be criminally culpable as well. 

What Is a Grand Jury Witness?

A grand jury witness, as the name implies, is someone who is typically subpoenaed to provide evidence to the grand jury. The subpoena may request live testimony, documents, and other physical evidence, or both. Although a witness is someone who is generally not assumed to be criminally culpable at the point in the process at which they are subpoenaed, the grand jury and prosecutors are actively seeking information such that a witness’ designation could change to either subject or target. Thus, grand jury witnesses are encouraged to speak with criminal defense counsel to assess their own circumstances while also ensuring they meet their legal obligations to the grand jury. 

Conclusion 

The attorneys of Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo are dedicated to zealously working on behalf of clients in order to powerfully defend their interests, minimize damages and other adverse consequences, and protect their reputations while preserving their resources. Our attorneys creatively and efficiently strategize toward positive resolutions that serve our client’s comprehensive, long-term goals. If you have reason to believe you are a target, subject, or witness in a federal or California grand jury proceeding, contact our office to speak with an experienced defense attorney regarding your situation today.

May 1, 2023

Consequences of White Collar Crimes in California

No ordinary citizen wants to find themselves the subject of a criminal proceeding of any sort, but white-collar criminal convictions bring with them particular types of consequences that may not apply in other criminal situations. For example, while a person convicted of a low-level drug charge may be in a position where that person can pay a fine or enter a drug rehabilitation program and move on with their life, a person convicted of a white-collar crime like accepting kickbacks or committing securities fraud may have their entire professional reputation and livelihood ruined and unable to work again in any similar type of vocation, in addition to facing significant prison time and criminal penalties. 

White-collar criminal proceedings are often much more factually complex than those involved in a non-white-collar property or violence criminal charge. For example, white-collar criminal cases related to cybersecurity or trade secrets may involve highly complex technical details requiring the use of sophisticated experts. 

Because white-collar criminal proceedings often vary significantly from those involving “street crimes” like assault or burglary, it is important for a person under investigation or facing prosecution for a white-collar crime to work with experienced white-collar criminal defense counsel in defending themselves and asserting their rights. The stakes for a white-collar criminal conviction are high, and below are some of the consequences associated with certain types of white-collar criminal convictions. 

Money Laundering

California state charges for money laundering can result in criminal fines of $500,000 and four years in prison. These penalties can be increased if the funds laundered were the product of other criminal activity. Under federal law, white-collar money laundering defendants can also be liable for criminal fines of up to $500,000 (or twice the value of the laundered funds, whichever is greater) and prison sentences of up to 20 years. Because money laundering often is pursued in the context of other crimes (e.g., drug crimes, wire fraud, etc.), these penalties are often in addition to other criminal penalties. 

Furthermore, as with essentially all white-collar criminal convictions, a money laundering conviction can have immense negative consequences on a person’s ability to engage in future financial transactions and/or secure employment or business opportunities. 

Healthcare Fraud

There are a number of criminal charges related to healthcare fraud, each of which include their own specific criminal penalties. 

A person such as a physician or healthcare executive found to have violated the federal False Claims Act – such as for having submitted fraudulent reimbursement claims for Medicare or Medicaid – may be sentenced to up to five years in prison and face a criminal fine of $25,000, in addition to civil FCA penalties which include fines of three times the amount of fraudulently submitted claims. 

As another example, a person found to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute faces up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine, in addition to being excluded from federal healthcare programs. 

While this article focuses on criminal rather than civil penalties, note that there are also significant civil penalties related to white-collar healthcare fraud. For example, physicians found to violate the Stark Law can face exclusion from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, denial of payment, and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per submitted claim and $100,000 for the existence of each arrangement or scheme. 

Securities Law Violations

A person convicted of securities fraud at the federal level – which could include any number of misrepresentative acts in connection with the purchase or sale of certain registered securities – can face 25 years in prison in addition to criminal fines. The penalties for insider trading are similarly harsh, with defendants facing 20 years in prison and $5 million in fines for individuals (and $25 million for organizations). Obstruction of justice is commonly an issue in securities law cases, for which the penalty is up to 10 years in prison. There are numerous federal (and state) securities law criminal statutes, of which these are only a sample. 

Public Corruption / Bribery 

There are numerous California state laws regarding public corruption, which often includes bribery of public officials. Defendants convicted of public corruption in California state court of public corruption can be sentenced to up to 4 years in state prison. 

At the federal level, a person convicted of bribing a public official can be sentenced to up to 15 years in federal prison. Furthermore, federal law provides criminal penalties for bribery of foreign officials as well pursuant to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 

Theft of Trade Secrets

In California state court, an individual convicted of theft of trade secrets may be sentenced to up to three years in prison in addition to being ordered to pay restitution for the damages caused by the theft of trade secrets, which can be significant. Under federal law, a defendant can face up to ten years in prison, in addition to paying a fine of up to $5 million or three times the value of the trade secrets. 

Conclusion 

The attorneys of Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo are dedicated to zealously working on behalf of clients in order to powerfully defend their interests, minimize damages and other adverse consequences, and protect their reputations while preserving their resources. Our attorneys creatively and efficiently strategize toward positive resolutions that serve our client’s comprehensive, long-term goals. If you have reason to believe you are under investigation and/or active prosecution by local, state, or federal law enforcement authorities, contact our office to speak with an experienced defense attorney regarding your situation today.

April 6, 2023

When Do You Need a Healthcare Defense Attorney?

Healthcare is one of the most vital and vast industries in our nation, and it is also perhaps the most regulated.  Physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, managed care organizations, and other healthcare providers face significant consequences in investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. These consequences can include steep financial penalties and other liabilities, loss of licensure, inability to participate in Medicare or Medicaid programs, reputational damage, and even jail and prison time. 

When faced with the signs of an investigation by a state, federal, or licensing organization – or the potential threat of a civil lawsuit – there can be a temptation to try to resolve it on your own without the assistance of counsel, or to simply hope it goes away without further development. However, the risks to doing so are significant to your career and perhaps even your freedom, and individuals and organizations facing such legal challenges are strongly encouraged to seek out experienced counsel as soon as possible to address these challenges in a proactive and confidential manner. 

The healthcare defense attorneys of Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP are experienced in providing robust defense to physicians, other healthcare professionals, and healthcare organizations in state and federal investigations and criminal inquiries as well as in civil litigation, including in the following areas. 

Stark Law Defense

The “Stark Law” is a common title for the federal Physician Self-Referral Law found at 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. The Stark Law prohibits certain types of referrals for health services for which payments are submitted for reimbursement under federal health care programs including Medicaid and Medicare. 

In brief, the federal Stark Law prohibits a physician from making referrals for designated health services to entities in which that physician or an immediate family member of the physician has a financial interest. A financial interest in another entity can include either an ownership or investment interest of the referring physician (or family member) in the entity, or a compensation arrangement between the referring physician (or family member) in the entity. A compensation arrangement is any financial arrangement involving remuneration – whether overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly, or in cash or in kind. 

Physicians found to violate the Stark Law can face exclusion from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, denial of payment, and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per submitted claim and $100,000 for the existence of each arrangement or scheme. 

Anti-Kickback Law Defense

The Anti-Kickback Statute – or AKS – is a federal criminal law found at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), which prohibits the knowing and willful payment or receipt of any “remuneration” (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) in return for either:

  • Referring an individual to a person for any item or service for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal health care program, or
  • Purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for any good, facility, service, or item for which payment may be made in whole or in part under a federal health care program (or simply for recommending the purchase, leasing, or ordering of any such good, facility, service or item)

Thus, at a basic level, the Anti-Kickback statute makes it a crime to have any paid referral arrangement (whether in cash, property, or in-kind arrangement) for any health care services or goods for which payment is made under federal health care programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, subject to certain exceptions.

An individual found guilty of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute faces up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine, in addition to being excluded from federal healthcare programs. 

Federal and State False Claims Act Defense 

The federal False Claims Act (FCA) makes it illegal to knowingly defraud the federal government in a variety of scenarios, including submitting inflated and/or otherwise fraudulent Medicaid/Medicare claims. Similarly, the California False Claims Act (CFCA) makes it illegal to defraud the California state government, and such claims are often pursued in the context of submitting claims to the state government for reimbursement for provisions of healthcare services, prescriptions, and devices. 

A notable aspect of both the FCA and the CFCA is that the laws in a sense deputize anyone with knowledge of such illegal actions to file a lawsuit against a defendant under seal, and then the federal or state government will investigate such claims and determine whether to join in the lawsuit. There is great incentive for an individual to an FCA or CFCA lawsuit, as a successful FCA or CFCA plaintiff can obtain a significant financial reward for having done so. In the context of healthcare, it is not uncommon for employees such as nurses, physicians, data entry specialists, or even C-suite level executives to pursue FCA claims against their employer. 

Common types of activities that can lead to an FCA or CFCA lawsuit include the following: 

  • Billing for services or goods that were not provided
  • Billing for services or goods that were not medically necessary
  • Upcoding in billing to receive reimbursement at a higher rate than is justified
  • Unbundling in billing to receive reimbursement at a higher rate than is justified
  • Off-label drug promotion
  • Kickbacks

In addition to the liability that an individual or entity can face from actions alleged to violate the FCA or CFCA, such parties can also face further liability if they are alleged to have taken any action to retaliate against an FCA whistleblower, such as terminating that individual’s employment or other actions that might impair their employment, including suspending or transferring the employee. 

Illegal Prescription Practices

Pharmacists and other healthcare professionals can face significant civil and/or criminal exposure related to illegal prescription practices, including but not limited to: distributing prescription medications without a valid prescription, writing prescriptions for use by themselves, or dispensing prescription medication while under the influence. 

Licensing Issues

In addition to civil and criminal penalties, an individual or entity might face risks from state licensing boards over perceived misconduct. Because the loss or suspension of a license can mean the loss of one’s livelihood and professional reputation – which a professional has typically spent many years and hard work attaining – it is critical to take the process seriously.

Medical professionals may face licensing issues related to alleged legal or ethical violations in the context of their work (e.g., a doctor or pharmacist’s alleged misconduct related to prescription drugs), or outside of their duties whether inside or outside of the workplace, such as sexual misconduct, alcohol and drug-related activities (including DUIs), theft, fraud or other activities. 

While a licensure investigation may seem different from a criminal or civil enforcement action, the consequences may be just as significant, and it is important to work with experienced healthcare defense counsel at the first signs of such an investigation, and specifically before speaking to investigators. 

Healthcare Civil Litigation

While much of this article has focused on the significant threats that individuals and organizations face with respect to investigations and enforcement actions pursued by state, federal, and licensing authorities, healthcare professionals and entities of course also face legal risks related to civil litigation between private parties. 

Such civil matters can include contract and insurance disputes, data breach and cybersecurity related matters, malpractice actions, trade secret actions, elder abuse actions, physician termination and other employment-related actions. Our attorneys have extensive experience in defending individuals and organizations in civil litigation in numerous healthcare related matters. 

Conclusion 

Healthcare providers and professionals face unique and complex legal risks, and our attorneys have the legal experience and industry knowledge to counsel and protect clients in all aspects of the industry. It is important to respond properly to legal risks as soon as they arise.  Our attorneys are here to provide counsel and representation to mitigate risk at the earliest possible moment. Contact our office to speak with an experienced healthcare defense attorney regarding your situation today. 

April 6, 2023

Are There Laws That Protect Whistleblowers From Retaliation?

Becoming a whistleblower in the context of corporate or other financial wrongdoing is not necessarily an easy road. It can be challenging and intimidating to take on the burden of calling out fraud and other illegal actions by bringing such actions to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Corporate cultures are often built around the ideas of just doing what you are told, not rocking the boat, and putting the concerns of the business over your own. In short, it often takes courage and determination to do the right thing by presenting evidence of illegality carried out by those around you, including your superiors and/or company management. 

At the same time, the personal and societal rewards for doing so can be great. Whistleblowers throughout history have done a tremendous service for society and even the companies themselves (even if the current management might not feel that way) by coming forward with evidence of wrongdoing, such as Medicare or Medicaid fraud that hurts taxpayers or securities fraud which harms investors. Additionally, for certain types of illegal acts, the whistleblower can individually stand to reap a large financial reward for their efforts. 

In the case of a fraud claim pursued under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), a whistleblower can receive between 15 and 30 percent of the financial penalties levied on a defendant, and numerous defendants have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in such fines. A whistleblower who provides information to the SEC leading to a successful enforcement action leading to monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million is eligible to receive an award of between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions imposed in such an action. Past SEC enforcement actions have led to whistleblower rewards in the amounts of $114 million, $110 million, and $50 million, respectively. 

Thus, there can be hugely significant benefits to coming forward as a whistleblower, but of course there are risks as well. Those individuals who have much to lose as potential targets of an FCA lawsuit or SEC investigation clearly may be motivated to take action to prevent such legal enforcement actions from happening. And, given that they have already shown a willingness to break the law in one area, they may well be tempted to further their wrongdoing by taking retaliatory action against those who would shine a light on their misconduct. 

There are, however, robust laws in place to deter such retaliatory action, as discussed below. In any case, it is important for a potential whistleblower to work with experienced whistleblower counsel to avoid such retaliatory action before it happens and, should it happen, take swift measures to counter such action.  

What is Retaliation?

The US Department of Labor generally defines retaliation to occur when an employer (through a manager, supervisor, administrator or directly) fires an employee or takes any other type of adverse action against an employee for engaging in protected activity. An adverse action is an action which would dissuade a reasonable employee from raising a concern about a possible violation or engaging in other related protected activity. 

What is an example of retaliation?

Examples of retaliation against an employee whistleblower include not only terminating that person’s employment, but also suspending, threatening, harassing, demoting or otherwise discriminating against an employee for engaging in the protected act of reporting illegal actions in the workplace. 

For example, if an employee files an FCA lawsuit against their employer, that employer may not transfer that employee to a less desirable department or location within the company based on the fact that the lawsuit was filed. Similarly, if an employee provides the SEC with information regarding federal securities laws violations by the employer, management may not direct other employees to harass that employee in an attempt to intimidate them or motivate them to quit their job. 

Whistleblower Protections under the FCA and CFCA 

The FCA and California False Claims Act (CFCA) include anti-retaliation provisions to protect workers who pursue a whistleblower lawsuit. Such provisions protect workers not just from being fired for coming forward with a whistleblower claim, but also protect workers from being demoted, harassed, threatened, suspended or otherwise discriminated against in the workplace.

Pursuant to the FCA, if an employee is subjected to such retaliatory behavior as a result of pursuing a whistleblower claim, then the employee can pursue legal action against the employer for reinstatement in the same position, twice the amount of back pay they were denied plus interest, compensation for any special damages they suffered as a result of the discrimination, and attorney’s fees. 

Whistleblower Protections under the SEC Whistleblower Program

Pursuant to federal law, no employer may – either directly or indirectly – discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against a whistleblower because of the lawful acts of a whistleblower in providing information to the SEC in pursuing a whistleblower action.

If an employer is found to have wrongfully retaliated against an employee in pursuing a whistleblower action, the employee can obtain: 1) reinstatement in their prior position; 2) 2 times the amount of back pay otherwise owed to the employee; and 3) compensation for litigation costs and attorney’s fees. 

In addition to the above protections, SEC regulations prohibit any person from taking any action to prevent a whistleblower – whether that whistleblower is an employee of the potentially offending entity or not – from communicating with the SEC about a possible securities law violation, and any person who does act to prevent a person from reporting is subject to an SEC enforcement action for having done so. Said SEC regulations also prevent any person from inducing another to sign an agreement indicating they will not report securities law violations to the federal government. 

Further Whistleblower Protections Under California Law

In addition to the specific protections against retaliation under the FCA and SEC Whistleblower Program, California law provides additional whistleblower protections which apply to a broader context of whistleblower actions.

California Labor Code section 1102.5 makes it illegal for an employer or any person acting on behalf of that employer to, among other things:

“[M]ake, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employer’s job duties.”

The California statute goes on to state that any employer or person acting on behalf of the employer “shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing” such types of information to government agencies or to supervisors. In short, the statute means that a California employee cannot be retaliated against by an employer for proper whistleblowing of corporate wrongdoing – such as violation of the FCA or state or federal securities law – to the government or internally within the company.

More recently, California’s “Silenced No More Act”, implemented in 2022, provides further protection to employees against retaliation by preventing employers from implementing policies that prevent whistleblowing. Pursuant to the Silenced No More Act, employers are prohibited from entering into certain contracts with employees that prevent the employee from discussing illegal acts in the workplace relating to prohibited sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, workplace discrimination, or retaliation against an employee. 

Specifically, a nondisparagement or other contractual provision that restricts an employee’s ability to disclose information related to conditions in the workplace shall include, in substantial form, the following language: “Nothing in this agreement prevents you from discussing or disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment or discrimination or any other conduct that you have reason to believe is unlawful.” 

Thus, by express law in California, an employer may not ask an employee agree to avoid disclosure of illegal acts in the workplace.

Work with Experienced Counsel to Prevent and Protect Yourself from Retaliation 

In general, potential FCA and SEC whistleblowers are strongly encouraged to work with experienced legal counsel in pursuing their FCA claim or developing and providing whistleblower tips to the SEC in order to maximize their opportunity to obtain a significant financial reward and to properly protect themselves against retaliation. 

If you have information that you believe may form the basis of an FCA action or SEC Whistleblower Reward Program submission, contact our office today to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced Whistleblower attorneys. 

March 22, 2023

Bloomberg Law – Counsel’s Disqualification Upheld Over Use of Privileged Emails

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/counsels-disqualification-upheld-over-use-of-privileged-emails

Counsel’s knowing use of the opposing side’s privileged documents, however obtained, is a ground for disqualification, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday in a dispute among cannabis company co-owners.

The 3-0 court held that a board member defendant reasonably expected her emails with her husband that were downloaded by plaintiff “were, and would remain, confidential.”

Insisting that counsel “not read purloined documents any more closely than is necessary” to determine if they are privileged, and prohibiting their use if they are, won’t inhibit legitimate attorney-client conversations, the court said. And a client whose counsel is disqualified for defying such a rule isn’t likely to repeat the violation.

Hosie Rice LLP represented Militello and the firm. Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP represented Lawrence. Cohen Williams Williams LLP represents Cannaco Research Corp.

March 22, 2023

Vulture – Rachel Fiset on the Manslaughter Case Against Alec Baldwin

https://www.vulture.com/2023/03/alec-baldwin-manslaughter-case-prosecutor-exit.html

“Everyone knows Alec Baldwin was holding the gun, there was no question,” said Rachel Fiset, defense attorney and co-founder of Los Angeles–based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, LLP, but “the fact that they don’t have the gun in pristine condition may make it even harder for the prosecution to prove whether he fired it or not.”

Before all of this drama went down, however, Baldwin secured his biggest legal win to date. After facing a gun-enhancement charge on one of the two involuntary-manslaughter counts Reeb charged him with, Baldwin’s lawyers successfully contended that he couldn’t be charged with the enhancement, arguing, “The prosecutors committed a basic legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a version of the firearm-enhancement statute that did not exist on the date of the accident.” Hutchins’s death was in October 2021, but the present version of this law did not go into effect until May of last year, ABC noted. If Baldwin were to be convicted on the gun-enhancement count, he would have faced a minimum five-year jail sentence.

The New Mexico prosecutors tossed the enhancement before a judge could decide the issue. The statement that accompanied the move was pointed. “In order to avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys, the District Attorney and the special prosecutor have removed the firearm enhancement to the involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the Rust film set,” the prosecution said. “The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.” With the enhancement dropped, Baldwin faces a maximum of only 18 months in lockup if convicted.

Reeb’s replacement has not been revealed as of press time, and it’s not exactly a plum legal gig.

March 15, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Alex Murdaugh’s Chances of Overturning Double Murder Conviction on Appeal

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-chances-overturning-double-murder-conviction-appeal-1786883

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek about the chances of Murdaugh’s appeal being overturned.

Fiset remarked that it was highly unlikely Murdaugh’s conviction would be overturned and said the former lawyer would have an “uphill battle” with the appeal.

She told Newsweek: “Murdaugh has informed the court that he will be filing an appeal, which is not surprising given his conviction and life sentence. He has not yet informed the court, however, on what basis he will seek to have his conviction overturned.

“It is likely that he will argue that the judge’s ruling allowing all of his financial crimes to be heard by the jury should be overturned on the basis that it unduly prejudiced the jury against him such that he could not get a fair trial on the ‘merits’ of the evidence in the murder trials.

“No matter what the basis is for his appeal, Murdaugh has an uphill battle. Not only does he have to show that there was an error made in the trial, but he also has to show that without that error he would not have been convicted.

“He may attempt every avenue of appeal and take it to the highest court possible before he reaches an end, but in all events it is highly unlikely that his conviction and sentence will be overturned.”

March 10, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on George Santos Hit by Most Damning Fraud Accusation Yet

https://www.newsweek.com/george-santos-hit-most-damning-fraud-accusation-yet-credit-card-1786937

Speaking to Newsweek, Rachel Fiset, a Los Angeles-based criminal defense attorney and co-founder of Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, said the number of investigations that Santos is now facing could make an indictment less likely.

Fiset said: “The allegations made against Santos regarding ATM fraud are fairly vague and are unlikely to amount to charges against him. It appears the actions upon which they are based are from 2017 and potentially outside of the statute of limitations. This is, however, another fraudulent scheme for which he has been implicated.

“The various allegations of fraudulent and criminal activity against him come from several different jurisdictions and can make the investigations into Santos’ potentially criminal activity less coordinated, which can make actual indictments less likely,” Fiset added. “At this point, the real question is what Congress will do as these and other allegations relating to illegal conduct continue to mount.”

March 3, 2023

Forbes – Rachel Fiset on What Led to Alex Murdaugh’s Murder Conviction

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/03/03/alex-murdaugh-was-found-guilty-of-murdering-his-wife-and-son-heres-what-legal-experts-say-led-to-his-conviction/?sh=3fa358c04b8c

When Murdaugh took the stand, he “tried to explain away” why he lied about where he was the night of the murders, but the jury likely thought that looked like a coverup, Rachel Fiset, a criminal defense attorney told the Associated Press.

March 3, 2023

AP – Rachel Fiset on Murdaugh Guilty Verdict

Disgraced South Carolina lawyer Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murder Thursday in the shooting deaths of his wife and son in a case that chronicled the unraveling of a powerful Southern family with tales of privilege, greed and addiction. Rachel Fiset comments.
March 2, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Alex Murdaugh’s ‘Crucial Lie’ to Be Considered by Jury

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-crucial-lie-considered-jury-trial-family-murder-verdict-1785108

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, the managing partner of the Los Angeles-based law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek ahead of the trial’s closing arguments and also highlighted how strong the prosecution’s case was.

She said: “The prosecution should also focus on the timeline of events that place Alex Murdaugh at the scene very close in time to the murders as well as his continued misrepresentations to investigators that he was not there on the night of the murders.

“Murdaugh’s lie regarding his whereabouts immediately before the murders makes it look like he was covering up something and arguments to that effect should be made to help persuade the jury to convict.”

The two attorneys did note, however, that during the trial Alex Murdaugh’s defense had success at “poking holes” in the prosecution’s arguments.

Fiset said that the defense would do their best to argue that the investigation into Murdaugh has been done “poorly” and “key evidence exonerating Murdaugh could have been lost.”

She added that the defense has made the arguments repeatedly that there is reasonable doubt due to the “loving family member” image they have created of Alex Murdaugh.

March 2, 2023

The Guardian – Rachel Fiset on Ghislaine Maxwell’s Hard Road in Bid to Overturn Sex-Trafficking Conviction

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/02/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-legal-appeal-analysis

Rachel Fiset, co-founder of Los Angeles firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, said she thought a successful appeal was “unlikely”.

While Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison, will probably fail in her appeal, there is still a reason for her to try.

“She’s looking at a very long sentence, and they are looking at ways to have it overturned, and there are not any options beyond an appeal,” Fiset said. “She doesn’t have very much to lose other than the cost of the appeal.

“It’s not uncommon for people with a lot of means to appeal their conviction in the hopes that it’s overturned. Maxwell has remained very steadfast that she has not committed these crimes and that it’s not her fault, so the appeal is not surprising.”

February 28, 2023

Law & Crime – Rachel Fiset on Buster Murdaugh’s Facepalm During Father’s Testimony in Double Murder Trial

“It appears Buster is all in on his father’s testimony, but the gory details of the murders are likely starting to weigh on him,” Los Angeles-based criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset said in an email. “He has been a fervent supporter of his father throughout the case, and it was likely difficult for him to hear some of the issues being brought up through his father’s testimony – including that his father lied about his whereabouts the night of the murders. Nevertheless, it appears that he does offer his dad his full support.”

February 24, 2023

Fox News – Rachel Fiset on Alec Baldwin’s Comments in Fatal ‘Rust’ Shooting

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-sends-message-skipping-first-court-appearance-fatal-rust-shooting-legal-expert

Rachel Fiset, co-founder and managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, explained that any public statements Baldwin made following the shooting can be used against him during a potential trial if they are proven to be untrue by the investigation.

“Generally speaking, when a possible defendant is under investigation, public statements about that investigation only serve to raise potential bias against the defendant,” Fiset, who is also not involved, explained to Fox News Digital. “It is difficult for people in the public eye not to respond publicly to any allegations against them, and Baldwin did what so many people do, which was attempt to exonerate himself in the public’s opinion while the investigation was still pending, which is a natural reaction for a celebrity.”

February 24, 2023

The New York Times – Rachel Fiset on Alex Murdaugh Taking the Witness Stand, Risky but Calculated Move.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/24/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-murder/lawyers-say-alex-murdaugh-taking-the-witness-stand-is-a-risky-but-calculated-move?smid=url-share

Rachel Fiset, a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles, said Friday that generally it was “a terrible idea” for defendants to take the stand, in part because a defendant can run a “huge risk of perjury.”

In Mr. Murdaugh’s case, Ms. Fiset said that “he runs a huge risk of incriminating himself in all of the other crimes for which he is charged.” Despite the risk, Ms. Fiset said that she believed Mr. Murdaugh decided to testify because it would give him a chance to “personalize his story.”

“He is a skilled lawyer who thought he could tell this story best in his own words,” Ms. Fiset surmised, adding that he probably wanted to speak to jurors in a manner that would resonate with them.

February 24, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset Brands Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Voting Plan ‘Unconstitutional’

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-voting-plan-branded-unconstitutional-1783585

Greene’s proposal was rejected as “unconstitutional” by Rachel Fiset. She is a criminal defense attorney who co-founded Los Angeles-based law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP.

Fiset told Newsweek: “Marjorie Taylor Greene’s suggestion that people moving states should forfeit their right to vote for five years is unconstitutional and universally against the principles set up ‘uniting’ the states.

February 24, 2023

Grunge – Rachel Fiset on Alex Murdaugh’s Stunning Choice to Take the Stand

https://www.grunge.com/1209643/alex-murdaughs-stunning-choice-to-take-the-stand-was-a-grave-mistake-lawyers-say-exclusive/

Grunge also had an exclusive chat about Alex Murdaugh with criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, co-founder and managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP. She echoed Barhoma’s sentiments about Murdaugh likely believing he could sway the jury to his side by speaking up at his own trial. She also concurs that this will more likely than not hurt rather than help Murdaugh’s case, explaining, “Alex Murdaugh likely believed if the jury heard his story from his own voice, it would give his timeline some credibility, and he believed he would be able to convince a jury that he loved his family so much that he could never have committed the act.”

Fiset went on to analyze how Murdaugh’s own experience as a lawyer may have factored into his decision, especially when taking Murdaugh’s attorneys and their changes of strategies into account. She said, “What’s interesting about Murdaugh taking the stand is, he must have weighed all of the criminal peril he could put himself in from his other pending criminal charges, because he knew he would be asked about his other crimes. His attorneys had asked to narrow the scope of his cross-examination, and the judge denied that request. As an experienced attorney himself, he was very aware of the risks of taking the stand in his own defense, and this was a horrible move.”

February 23, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset: Alex Murdaugh Testimony Risks Putting Him in ‘Serious Jeopardy’

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-testimony-risk-south-carolina-trial-family-murder-1783321?amp=1

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, the managing partner of the Los Angeles-based law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek about the possibility of Alex Murdaugh taking the stand.

She highlighted that there is a danger that Alex Murdaugh could be in danger of incriminating himself or also face perjury charges if he is found to be lying.

Rachel Fiset told Newsweek: “If Alex Murdaugh decides to testify, his testimony may bolster his credibility with the jury as to what he was doing the night of the murders and give him an opportunity to defend himself personally.

“In this case, however, Murdaugh has a litany of other criminal charges pending against him and the judge did not grant his attorneys’ request to have questions regarding other crimes excluded from his cross-examination.

“Therefore, not only could he incriminate himself with his own testimony in his current case, but he may also say incriminating things regarding his involvement in other crimes – or, if he is not truthful, his testimony could lead to perjury charges for lies about those crimes.

“Even though his testimony regarding the evening of the murders could potentially garner some favor with the jury, Murdaugh has so many criminal issues pending.

“[And] his testimony is likely to put him in more serious jeopardy going forward on those issues and potentially the current case depending on how he elects to explain away many of the inconsistencies in his defense.

“As an experienced attorney himself, he is very aware of the risks of taking the stand in his own defense.

February 23, 2023

Vulture – Rachel Fiset Explains All the Weirdness Around the YSL Trial

https://www.vulture.com/2023/02/young-thug-ysl-trial-jury-delay.html

“There’s a few reasons, kind of normal issues, that make things weird: One is that he’s a celebrity and two is that it’s a RICO trial. They’re estimating it’s going to take a year,” Rachel Fiset, a criminal defense attorney and managing partner of Los Angeles–based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, told Vulture. “So you have to find people that can give up a year of their life and sit on that jury — and that’s really hard to do.”

“The part that’s abnormal is the amount of defendants and the various shenanigans that are going on in court,” added Fiset. “The alleged passing of drugs, “that’s not normal.” These types of antics delay cases because officials “have to deal with these behaviors in court.”

February 23, 2023

Fox News – Rachel Fiset on Trump Grand Jury Foreperson’s Bizarre Press Blitz

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-grand-jury-forepersons-bizarre-press-blitz-stuns-liberal-media-surprises-legal-experts-no-upside

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, the co-founder and managing partner of Los Angeles-based firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, agreed that Kohrs did not break the law, but was walking a “very fine line.”

While Fiset opined that the Fulton County prosecutors were probably “disgusted” by Khors’ actions, she said it appeared “unlikely” she would be prosecuted for them.  

“The district attorney will not want to bring into focus any potential irregularities with her case moving forward – and, as this is all after the fact, it should not actually affect the recommendations of the grand jury,” Fiset added. “Instead, Kohrs appears to be giving valuable insight to anyone in the crosshairs of an indictment by naming witnesses and potential charges the D.A. may elect to bring.” 

February 22, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on What Buster Murdaugh’s Testimony Could Mean for Father Alex’s Trial

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-crime-trial-buster-murdaugh-take-stand-testimony-1782653

Following Buster Murdaugh’s testimony, criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek.

She noted that Buster Murdaugh likely did not offer much by way of new information but may have allowed his father to receive some sympathy from the jury.

“Buster’s testimony attempted to establish the Murdaugh family as a communicative and loving family. He established the family’s normal communication patterns as multiple texts in a day and having a general awareness of each other’s whereabouts,” she told Newsweek.

“He also elaborated on a family celebration when the family was together just two weeks prior to the murders. The defense attorneys methodically took Buster through the night of the murders in a manner that allowed Buster’s interpretation of his father’s innocence and shock to be displayed to the jury through his eyes.

“Alex Murdaugh watched proudly as his son testified and appeared to be pleased with his testimony. At times, Alex Murdaugh became emotional throughout the testimony.

“Substantively, Buster did not offer much to the jury as he was not a witness to the crime but he did provide his insights to the time period just before the crime and the days after the murders when he lost his mother, brother and then his grandfather just days later. All told, Buster likely garnered some sympathy for him and his family for the harsh and sudden losses they suffered sequentially.”

February 21, 2023

NewsNation – Rachel Fiset Analyzes Buster Murdaugh Testimony

Alex Murdaugh’s only living son, Buster Murdaugh, was called as the first witness Tuesday testifying in his dad’s defense at his double murder trial in South Carolina. Legal analysts Misty Marris and Rachel Fiset analyze his testimony so far and the defense posing alternative theories in the Murdaugh deaths.

February 17, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset Analyzes Alex Murdaugh’s Behavior in Crime Scene Video

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-crime-odd-behavior-police-crime-scene-video-attorney-1781999

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, the managing partner of the Los Angeles-based law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, spoke to Newsweek and reflected on the latest revelations in the case.

Fiset said: “The police interactions on the night of the murders could be interpreted in a variety of ways. He is visibly upset, but he appears to go in and out of what some may interpret as a rehearsed story.

“He offers a motive for the murders almost immediately upon the police arriving and seems to seek confirmation that both his wife and son are deceased in a way that could be interpreted as making sure they cannot contradict the stories he is telling.”

Court filings said that Maggie Murdaugh had been shot five times with an assault rifle while Paul Murdaugh had been shot twice at close range with a shotgun, according to a report in the Rolling Stone.

Alex Murdaugh has maintained that he wasn’t at the scene of the crime and later discovered the mother and son’s bodies near the dog kennels at the estate.

Fiset outlined other concerning aspects of Alex Murdaugh’s behavior during his initial interaction with the police.

She said: “[Alex Murdaugh] also begins to lay the groundwork regarding the timing of his actions that night, which sets up his alibi of time spent with his mother with Alzheimer’s disease and his sick father—neither of whom would be able to reliably confirm when he was actually away from his home.”

Fiset observed that it was “striking how clean his clothes are in the video.” She said: “The fact that he did not have any blood on his clothes given the bloody murder scene at the kennels may strike the jury as extremely unusual.”

February 8, 2023

The Independent – Rachel Fiset on Lindsay Clancy Using Postpartum Psychosis as a Defense

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/lindsay-clancy-duxbury-murder-charges-kids-b2278399.html

Defence attorney Rachel Fiset, a managing partner Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, told The Independent that to argue insanity her lawyer would have to convince a jury that she could not tell right from wrong.

“The fact that they’re calling it a psychosis instead of a depression does seem to set up the argument that she would have perhaps lost the ability to differentiate between right and wrong,” Ms Fiset said.

“If she is claiming to hear voices as a result of postpartum psychosis, if that is shown to be true there is no reason why the insanity defense would not apply.”

February 1, 2023

ZFZ Obtains Complete Victory for Inventor of Payment Ring Technology in Allegations Relating to $30 Million Patent Ownership Dispute

After half a decade of litigation, we are proud to announce that Rachel Fiset and the team at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo achieved a full dismissal on Friday of claims against client Joseph Prencipe in Esos Rings, Inc. v. Prencipe, et al. a civil case, at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.

Mr. Prencipe is the inventor of a payment ring technology patent that has been the subject of an ownership dispute for over five years.  Plaintiffs filed eight causes of action against our client seeking over $30 million in damages stemming from an alleged fraudulent transfer of a patent assignment by Mr. Prencipe.  Prior to the jury trial, a bench trial took place and plaintiff dismissed all claims against our client apart from a breach of fiduciary duty claim. 

On January 26, 2023, during the jury trial, after only thirty minutes of cross-examining the plaintiff and before putting on Mr. Prencipe’s full defense, plaintiff’s counsel called a sidebar to dismiss its remaining claim against Mr. Prencipe. 

The ZFZ team included Rachel Fiset, Jeanine Zalduendo, William Odom and Ashley Amell.

February 1, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Kari Lake’s Election Defiance Set to Descend Into Legal Bloodbath

https://www.newsweek.com/kari-lakes-election-defiance-set-descend-legal-bloodbath-1778169

Rachel Fiset, a criminal-defense attorney who founded Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, told Newsweek: “The investigation into Lake would be focused on any potential violations of state law that would have occurred as a result of her publishing voter signatures in a tweet attempting to demonstrate “election fraud” leading to her loss in her gubernatorial bid. Ironically, the tables would be turned on her as it relates to allegations of campaign fraud.

“The Court has already ruled she has no credible evidence of fraud, and now her continued claims could lead to sanctions for campaign violations,” Fiset said.

“Should she continue with these claims of uncredible fraud during an investigation into her own campaign violations, investigators may scrutinize her remarks and, depending on the circumstances, use them against her in their findings as to whether she violated the law.”

January 30, 2023

AP – Rachel Fiset on Internet Evidence Key, but Not Enough in No-body Murder Case

https://apnews.com/article/technology-district-of-columbia-massachusetts-internet-d4a9f896c3d66e1ceb4f65ff11d5da35

In the Walshe case, the defense will likely bring in its own expert to attack the reliability of the search evidence at trial, which could be years away,” said Rachel Fiset, a Los Angeles-based defense attorney.

But the whole of the evidence may be too much to overcome.

“I am having a hard time, other than the fact that there is no body, seeing how Brian Walshe will defend this case, unless he claims self-defense or insanity,” Fiset said. “These searches are really bad, really damning.”

January 26, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Whether Prosecutors will Struggle to Establish Alex Murdaugh Motive

https://www.newsweek.com/alex-murdaugh-motive-trial-court-case-latest-attorney-prosecution-1776763

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, a co-founder and managing partner of Los Angeles-based Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo LLP, spoke to Newsweek about the ongoing court case.

Fiset told Newsweek: “The prosecution opened their case today by laying out some of their crucial evidence and garnering sympathy for the victims who had no defensive wounds ‘as if they didn’t see a threat coming from their attacker.’

“The prosecution pointed out that Alex Murdaugh could be heard on a video his son Paul sent a friend right before the murders, which presumably places Murdaugh at the scene of the crime around the time of the murders.

“The evidence will also include a raincoat found at Alex Murdaugh’s parents’ house with large traces of gunpowder on it.

Fiset also predicted how the court case could play out over the next few weeks.

“The defense will attempt to poke holes in the prosecution’s evidence while depicting the Murdaughs as a loving family.

“They will portray Alex Murdaugh as a devoted father and husband who was overcome with grief by the murder of his wife and son.”

January 25, 2023

Newsweek – Rachel Fiset on Whether Donald Trump will Be Indicted, Georgia Grand Jury

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-georgia-crime-grand-jury-2020-election-1776525

Criminal defense attorney Rachel Fiset, co-founder and managing partner ZFZ Law, said that if the special grand jury report is not made public, the information it contains could be “highly significant” to Trump, his campaign and Willis’ decision making.

“No matter what it says, the Trump campaign will immediately begin to spin the information in a way that suggests there were no crimes committed,” Fiset told Newsweek.

January 23, 2023

Mirror UK – Rachel Fiset on Alec Baldwin’s Four Biggest Mistakes as he Slams Rust Manslaughter Charge

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/alec-baldwins-four-biggest-mistakes-29007474

Rachel Fiset, co-founder and managing partner at Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo, said these public statements could be used against him.

“Generally speaking, when a possible defendant is under investigation, public statements about that investigation only serve to raise potential bias against the defendant,” Fiset said.

The lawyer added that these public statements could be used “against him later to reduce his credibility”.

January 23, 2023

The Washington Post – Rachel Fiset Discusses Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Comments which may Hurt him

Baldwin’s public attempts to cast blame elsewhere may have backfired legally, according to Rachel Fiset, a managing partner at the California firm Zweiback, Fiset & Zalduendo.

“The deflection of blame that was constantly coming out of his mouth, even as he struggled to deal with this accident — because I think everybody believes that was an accident — probably just rubbed [the prosecutors] the wrong way, because what prosecutors want to see is remorse,” Fiset said. “They want to see that somebody has taken a thoughtful, measured approach to something as tragic as this and that it would never happen again.”

Call Now ButtonCall Now