Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 6
`Camerilibackd00GRLARC Dentumerni4ege1 Ftd2001722 PaggelDbb6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`ee He ee ee eee ee eee eee x
`
`SCOTT TUCKERand
`TIMOTHY MUIR,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`:
`
`16 Cr. 91 (PKC)
`
`- Vv, -
`
`UNITED STATES,
`
`Respondent.
`
`ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WAIVER
`CINFORMED CONSENT)
`
`WHEREAS Defendants Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir
`
`(Tucker? and “Muir,”
`
`respectively, or together the “Defendants”) have filed motions (the “Motions”) pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds, among others, that their former counsel, Thomas Bath, Esq., and
`
`Mare Agnifolo, Esq. (for Muir), and Paul Shechtman, Esq., Paula Junghans, Esq., Lee Ginsberg,
`
`Esq., James Roth, Esq., and Beverly Van Ness, Esq. (for Tucker) (together, “Prior Counsel”)
`
`provided ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with pretrial proceedings,trial, and direct
`
`appeal;
`
`WHEREASthe Government, after reviewing the motion papers, has concluded that Prior
`
`Counsel’s testimony will be needed in orderto allow the Government to respondto certain aspects
`
`of the Motions;
`
`WHEREASthe Court, after reviewing the motion papers,is satisfied that Prior Counsel’s
`
`testimony is needed in orderto allow the Government to fully respond to the Motions,
`
`ae a a aa ee i a a aaie x
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 6
`CARRETHIEPLOIRALPKC Thtumemiaeye1 Ffdddl20022 PRage DdH6
`
`WHEREASthe Court is cognizant that, absent court order or informed consent, ethical
`
`concerns may inhibit Prior Counsel from disclosing confidential information relating to a prior
`
`client even in the absence ofa privilege, see, e.g., ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics and Prof.
`
`Responsibility Formal Op. 10-456 (July 14, 2010), Disclosure ofInformation to Prosecutor When
`
`Lawyer’s Former Client Brings Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim; and
`
`WHEREASby making the Motions, the Defendants have waived as a matter of law the
`
`attorney-client privilege with respect to the issues necessary to resolve their motions;
`
`If IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat Prior Counsel shall give sworn testimony, in the form of
`
`an affidavit, addressing the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel made by the
`
`Defendants; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that the Defendants execute and return to this Court within 60 days from
`
`today’s date the accompanying “Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent)” forms. If
`
`Tucker or Muir does not return the form bearing their name to the Court within 60 days from
`
`today’s date, the Court will deny their § 2255 motion on the ground that the movant failed to
`
`authorize the disclosure of information needed to permit the Government to respond to thetr
`
`motion; and it is further
`
`ORDEREDthat the Governmentshall file an answeror other pleadings in response to the
`
`motion within 60 days of the date that all affidavits of Prior Counsel are made available to the
`
`Government.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`December Lo 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 6
`ClaseiliserOiaKC=Momumennt4o9e1 FRaddl2a0i22 PaRegSDb66
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`we eeee ee ee eee x
`
`TIMOTHY MUIR,
`
`-V.-
`UNITED STATES,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`:
`
`2
`:
`
`16 Cr. 9f (PKC)
`
`we ee eee x
`
`Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent)
`
`To: Defendant Timothy Muir (Reg. No. 27904-031):
`
`You have made a motion based, in part, on the ground that you received ineffective
`assistance from your former lawyers, Thomas Bath, Esq., and Mare Agnifolo, Esq. (‘your former
`attorneys”). The Court has reviewed your papers and determined that it needs your former
`attorneys’ testimony in order to evaluate your motion.
`
`By making this motion, you have waived the attorney-client privilege you had with Mr.
`Bath and Mr. Agnifolo to the extent relevant to determining your motion, This means that if you
`wish to press your motion, you cannot keep the communications between yourself and your former
`attorneys a secret—you must allow them to be disclosed to the Government and to the Court
`pursuant to court order. The Court has already issued an order directing Mr. Bath and Mr. Agnifolo
`to provide affidavits to the Government, which will then be filed with the Court. Additionally, the
`Government may discuss with Mr. Bath and Mr. Agnifolo communications between them and you
`regarding your criminal case and subsequent appeal, consistent with your waiver of the attorney-
`client privilege by making your motion. This Informed Consent form is designed to ensure that
`you fully understand and agreeto this.
`
`If you wish to proceed with your motion, you must sign this statement and returnit to the
`Court. The form constitutes your authorization to your former attorneys to disclose confidential
`communications: (1) in response to a Court order; and (2) to the extent necessary to shed light on
`the allegations of ineffective assistance of counselthat are raised by your motion.
`
`You should know that if you sign this authorization, you run the risk that your former
`attorneys will contradict your statements about their representation of you. However, you should
`also know that the Court will deny your motion if you do not authorize your formerattorneys to
`testify in this matter.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 6
`CASSCLILB6CrOOOOVIARCC Doccnmeah4egel Afibec1LAQ1222 Aaages4oots
`
`You must return this form, signed by you, within 60 days of the date of the accompanying
`Order. If the Court does not receive this form, signed by you, within that time, the Court will
`automatically deny your motion.
`
`AUTHORIZATION
`
`I have read the Court’s Order dated December __, 2022 and this document headed
`Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent). I hereby authorize my former attorneys,
`Thomas Bath, Esq., and Marc Agnifolo, Esq., to testify in this matter pursuant to court order, and
`only to the extent necessary to shed light on the allegations ofineffective assistance of counselthat
`are raised by my motion.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`Timothy Muir
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 5 of 6
`CAaBECLILGEOOOOUIFRICC Dlocanmeant99eal Aritettba01222 Aeagedtosics
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`be ee ee ee eee x
`
`SCOTT TUCKER,
`
`-Vv.-
`UNITED STATES,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`.
`
`.
`:
`
`16 Cr. 91 (PEC)
`
`woe eee x
`
`Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent)
`
`To: Defendant Scott Tucker (Reg. No. 06133-045):
`
`You have made a motion based, in part, on the ground that you received ineffective
`assistance from your former lawyers, Paul Shechtman, Esq., Paula Junghans, Esq., Lee Ginsberg,
`Esq., James Roth, Esq., and Beverly Van Ness, Esq, (“your former attorneys”). The Court has
`reviewed your papers and determinedthat it needs your former attorneys’ testimony in order to
`evaluate your motion,
`
`By making this motion, you have waived the attorney-client privilege you had with Mr.
`Shechtman, Ms. Junghans, Mr. Ginsberg, Mr. Roth, and Ms. Van Nessto the extent relevant to
`determining your motion. This meansthat if you wish to press your motion, you cannot keep the
`communications between yourself and yourformerattorneys a secret—you must allow them to be
`disclosed to the Governmentandto the Court pursuantto court order. The Court has already issued
`an order directing Mr. Shechtman, Ms. Junghans, Mr. Ginsberg, Mr. Roth, and Ms. Van Nessto
`provide affidavits to the Government, which will then be filed with the Court. Additionally, the
`Government may discuss with Mr. Shechtman, Ms. Junghans, Mr. Ginsberg, Mr. Roth, and Ms.
`Van Ness communications between them and you regarding your criminal case and subsequent
`appeal, consistent with your waiver of the attorney-clientprivilege by making your motion. This
`Informed Consent form is designed to ensure that you fully understandandagreetothis.
`
`If you wish to proceed with your motion, you must sign this statement and return it to the
`Court, The form constitutes your authorization to your former attorneys to disclose confidential
`communications: (1) in response to a Court order; and (2) to the extent necessary to shed light on
`the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that are raised by your motion.
`
`You should know that if you sign this authorization, you run the risk that your former
`attorneys will contradict your statements about their representation of you. However, you should
`also know that the Court will deny your motion if you do not authorize your former attorneys to
`testify in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 498 Filed 12/01/22 Page 6 of 6
`Cage16-S:cO0O0OR-PREC DoOeamMeAugPa Ried 12022 Pays cate
`
`You must return this form, signed by you, within 60 days of the date of the accompanying
`Order. If the Court does not receive this form, signed by you, within that time, the Court will
`automatically deny your motion.
`
`AUTHORIZATION
`
`I have read the Court’s Order dated December __, 2022 and this document headed
`Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver (Informed Consent). I hereby authorize my formerattorneys,
`Mr. Shechtman, Ms. Junghans, Mr. Ginsberg, Mr. Roth, and Ms. Van Ness,to testify mn this matter
`pursuant to court order, and only to the extent necessary to shed light on the allegations of
`ineffective assistance of counselthat are raised by my motion.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`Scott Tucker
`
`
`
`
`
`