Joel Brodsky’s filing to withdraw from Drew Peterson civil suit is mostly about Steve Greenberg. Read it here

On Monday, after being hit with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and withdrawing from Drew Peterson’s murder defense, Joel Brodsky also withdrew from Peterson’s defense in the wrongful death suit filed by the family of Kathleen Savio.

The motion reads rather like a petulant diary entry as it mainly attacks former co-counsel, Steven Greenberg, who joined the Peterson defense in April 2010.

In the filing, Brodsky claims that it was Greenberg, not he, who gave Drew Peterson ineffective assistance, and that Greenberg suffers from “pathological narcissism” and is “fixated and obsessed with Joel Brodsky”. Brodsky accuses Greenberg of leaking sealed documents to Chicago Tribune reporter, Stacy St. Clair, and of carrying on an intimate relationship with In Session reporter, Beth Karas, in exchange for face time with the camera during Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

You can read the motion, in its entirety, below. It’s a doozy.

Steven Greenberg’s 31-page memo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “Joel Brodsky’s filing to withdraw from Drew Peterson civil suit is mostly about Steve Greenberg. Read it here

  1. When did Brodsky get his medical degree? He must have one, if he can diagnose mental illness, Right? 🙂

    That motion is crazy. He sounds like such a jealous, vindictive little child. Maybe he should see a doctor.

    I hope the judge see through all of this crap, and we can get on to the sentencing.

  2. This is a particularly interesting bit (to me):

    11. due to his pathological fixation on Mr. Brodsky, Attorney Steve Greenberg has committed what is probably the single biggest legal mistake in the history of jurisprudence. In the
    December 13, 2012 Memo in the Savio murder case Attorney Steve Greenberg quoted directly from a November 24, 2012, letter that Mr. Brodsky sent to Drew Peterson that concerned privileged matters. By doing this Greenberg has most assuredly waived the attorney-client privilege regarding the contents and subject matter of that letter, which is extremely sensitive on a matter still being investigated by the Will County States Attorney’s office, and which may lead to the unearthing of…

    Okee dokie, Dr. Brodsky.

  3. He does sound like a lunatic, doesn’t he?

    I apologize for the messy conversion to the PDF, but I’m in a rush to get some last-minute shopping done for an early X-mas event.

    Be back later to really give the thing a good read (and a good laugh!).

  4. Oh, but quickly, Joel says that Greenberg was schmoozing with St. Clair and Karas for the media coverage? At least they aren’t gossip columnists like Michael Sneed, and he didn’t Joel hire a publicist for heaven’s sake.

    Brodsky repeatedly endowed columnist Michael Sneed of theChicago Sun Times with fodder regarding Drew in order to keepBrodsky’s name in the news. He would construct the story, write theletter, or provide the leak. In doing so he routinely breached attorney-client privilege. Always brazen, Brodsky would leak information to Sneedso that he could then appear on national news shows that same day andcomment on the very information that he had secretly leaked.

    Still, it’s to the point now that these two could just be looking in a mirror and wagging their fingers at each other. I kind of wish they were and we could all get back to the real issues at hand here.

  5. 11.However, in what is the final straw that requires Mr. Brodsky’s withdrawal in the instantcase, due to his pathological fixation on Mr. Brodsky, Attorney Steve Greenberg has committedwhat is probably the single biggest legal mistake in the history of jurisprudence. In theDecember 13, 2012 Memo in the Savio murder case Attorney Steve Greenberg quoted directlyDecember 13, 2012 Memo in the Savio murder case Attorney Steve Greenberg quoted directlyfrom a November 24, 2012, letter that Mr. Brodsky sent to Drew Peterson that concerned
    privileged matters. By doing this Greenberg has most assuredly waived the attorney-client privilege regarding the contents and subject matter of that letter, which is extremely sensitive ona matter still being investigated by the Will County States Attorney’s office, and which may leadto the unearthing of Greenberg’s illness also causes him to forgets that when Smith was called itwas he, Greenberg, who went out into the hallway to get Mr. Smith and it was he who escortedMr. _Smith into the Courtroom.

    Sheesh, he must have written this himself. Ramble much Joel? That doesn’t even make sense! 🙂

  6. Someone just jumped from the frying pan into the fire….or we could say …it opens up a whole new can of worms..thanks facs…you put it in terms that one can understand…but I see Brodsky and Greenberg acting out of extreme anger…jealousy…and a total dislike for each other…and its not being played out to either one’s advantage…if they were children one could put them in time out..the disrespect among the two of them is played out thru the court and media…I hope drew is in his cell sweating bullets…..

  7. 12. Therefore, because of this unfathomable error by Attorney Steve Greenberg, Peterson’s current attorney, Joel Brodsky fully and reasonably expects to be called as a witness against Mr. Peterson (and another person) either before the grand jury and/or in a future prosecution against Drew Peterson (and another person).

    …the heck?

  8. 14.Joel Brodsky has sent a substitution of attorneys to Drew Peterson to sign so that hecould withdraw without the necessity for the bringing of this motion. However, Mr. Petersonhas refused to sign and return this document, (most probably again on the ill conceived adviceof Steve Greenberg), thereby requiring the bringing of this motion.

    He just can’t help the personal digs! It is kind of funny, yet at the same time pretty pathetic! I wonder if there was steam coming off his head when he wrote it?

    🙂

  9. Nice exchange from April 2010 in the video that I just added to the post above:

    NEWS ANCHOR: How big is your ego and is it going to clash, seriously, with Joel Brodsky and the rest of the team?

    GREENBERG: Again, drawing on you. How big is your ego to be to be able to go on TV and face all the people? So you have to have a certain amount of–I dont like to think of it as ego–I like to think of it as confidence.

  10. Unbelievable behaviour from so called professional adults. They are acting like a bunch of little juvenile bullies standing off to each other. IMO, both of them Suck, and have real issues.

  11. I haven’t read it yet, but what in the world has Greenberg’s alleged behavior got to do with Brodsky representing Peterson in a civil case?

    Like I said earlier, Brodsky sees Drew as a turncoat. There is not a doubt in my mind that Brodsky is laying out a trail of breadcrumbs that will give ISP the pieces to the puzzle regarding Stacey.

    Sit tight. Hell hath no fury like a pathological narcissist scorned!

  12. Does the fact that Brodsky’s filing includes the diagnosis code for pathological narcissism for use on insurance forms indicate some familiarity with the condition?

    Maybe it is contagious, Greenberg got it from Brodsky! 😆

  13. Just wanted to point out again that the scan and conversion of the motion to PDF is not good, so some of it is jumbled, footnotes are placed inside the body, etc.

    I think this is what that one passage is supposed to be:

    In the December 13, 2012 Memo in the Savio murder case Attorney Steve Greenberg quoted directly from a November 24, 2012, letter that Mr. Brodsky sent to Drew Peterson that concerned privileged matters. By doing this Greenberg has most assuredly waived the attorney-client privilege regarding the contents and subject matter of that letter, which is extremely sensitive on a matter still being investigated by the Will County States Attorney’s office, and which may lead to the unearthing of evidence against Peterson. Greenberg’s illness also causes him to forgets that when Smith was called it was he, Greenberg, who went out into the hallway to get Mr. Smith and it was he who escorted Mr. Smith into the Courtroom.“

    The italics are mine to show a part that is jumbled in the PDF.

  14. …before the grand jury and/or in a future prosecution against Drew Peterson (and another person)

    So who do you guys think this “other person” could be? Not Tom Morphey. He has immunity.

  15. Whoever it is, sounds like Joel knows something about it, and said something in that letter to Drew knowing it would be read and used against him. Once Greenberg used that letter in this ineffective counsel suit, it opened up a can of worms. Whatever it is that he knows, or thinks he knows, let’s hope it helps find Stacy and brings her home.

  16. ” and which may lead to the UNEARTHING of evidence against Peterson.”

    Boy, that seems to be a deliberate clue that Brodsky has indeed dropped a bread crumb as to the whereabouts of Stacey.

  17. At one time Joel Brodsky was telling the media that DuPage County State’s Attorney, Joe Birkett, was responsible for the leak of the hearsay ruling. Now he says it was Greenberg.

    Again, there are rules about what to do if you see that another attorney is involved in misconduct. If Joel knew that Greenberg leaked that ruling back in July 2010, why didn’t he report him to the authorities instead of pretending that a state’s attorney had done it?

    Tsk. Tsk.

  18. It would seem that the entire team had a hand in playing fast and loose with the rules. Is anyone really shocked by this?

  19. Stay tuned in … Some day we may find out to whom and how really high up the legal ladder all this was actually reported. Lots of legal eyes were watching this case. Remember former defense team attorneys reported JB to the Bar Assn when they left the ‘dream’ team. JB’s behavior embarrasses and further tarnishes the legal profession.

  20. I was not aware that any former members of the dream team reported JB to the Bar. Who? I suspect that Rheem Odeh would have a bucketful of violations she could dump over JB’s head.

  21. ATL, I don’t know of any official/public complaints but I do remember Andrew Abood hinting that he would file something. The most recent disciplinary action he received was in 2004 and there are no proceedings pending according to the ARDC.

  22. These were all posted on Facebook in May of 2010:

    Abood Law Firm:
    Thinking about writing a book entitled “How to make the biggest mistake of your life.” It would be a “how to” book on people that have hired the wrong lawyer for whatever reason — and how in the end it became a much bigger mistake that the reason for the lawyer in the first place. What do you think?

    Abood Law Firm:
    Just finished. A sad day when you have to report another lawyer for his misdeeds. This is the second one that I have filed against this lawyer. Not sure what will happen, hopefully, at a minimum, the lawyer will at least look at 8.3 and 8.4 of the model rules. As a courtesy I sent the lawyer a draft to allow him to respond first. But I did this before and no response. I think he blocks my emails. Pretty childish on his part.

    Abood Law Firm:
    What do you think? Do you think ALF did the right thing by agreeing to pay Dr. Peterson’s fees? Back in the day, they use to say follow the money. Today, you just need to follow the emails. I save all my emails. Wonder who might like to see those given the comments by one of the lawyers in this article.

    Abood Law Firm:
    The funny thing about emails is that they can document someone’s involvement in a transaction before, during, and after. Can be pretty compelling.

    Abood Law Firm:
    Under the model rules, lawyers are required to report the misdeeds of another lawyer when the other lawyers conduct amounts to fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or dishonesty.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/medical-examiner-says-petersons-defense-stiffed-him/#comment-60460

  23. If Joel would have left out all the repeated accusations that Steve Greenberg is suffering from some type of mental illness (!), his document would have been ominous enough on its own, especially regarding the following:

    “12.Therefore, because of this unfathomable error by Attorney Steve Greenberg,Peterson’s current attorney,
    Joel Brodsky fully and reasonably expects to be called as a witnessagainst Mr. Peterson (and another person) either before the grand july and/or in a future prosecution against Drew Peterson (and another person)”

    From the above it appears Joel will go as far as testifying against Drew (and another person) and goodness knows what kind of dirt this man (Joel) has on Drew and his cronies, considering Joel has been Drews co-joined twin from day one …

  24. I haven’t read all of Steve Greenbergs 33 pages yet, but on page 1 or 2 of his document, Steve is claiming the following:

    ” In 2007, when Drew took to the airwaves, he needed serious representation; an even-keeled, seasoned trial lawyer who would artfully guide him through the coming storm. Instead, he was lured into accepting Captain Joel Brodsky”

    So – poor, naive little Drew was “lured” by Joel Brodsky, yet Drew was happy with Joel for 5 years (or was it longer ).

    From what I read Steve Greenberg joined in 2010 (or was he also “lured” by Joel) and apparently Steve was happy with Joel for 2 years.

    Drew and Steve Greenberg must either be slow learners or Joel is very artful at “luring” and “deceiving” …

  25. The outspoken, cigar-chomping Cincinnati restaurateur who was arrested during the Drew Peterson murder trial for mouthing an expletive to Peterson during a courtroom break will have the charges against him dropped if he stays out of trouble here for the next four months, a special prosecutor said.

    “I kept staring at him because I am not going to be intimidated by this lowlife,” Ruby said. “And the look kept getting dirtier, so I just kept looking at him. I even thought about going over there and giving him a mouthful of missing teeth. I really thought about knocking them out … because if you can’t take care of him legally, you take care of it physically where I come from — Jersey.”

    Ruby, who later apologized for his actions, said he was drawn to the case by what he called Peterson and his defense team’s mockery of Peterson’s wives. He has offered $100,000 for the discovery of Stacy Peterson’s body. Prosecutors have said they believe Drew Peterson murdered his missing fourth wife, but he has not been charged.

    Ruby is barred from attending Peterson’s sentencing hearing, which is expected to be scheduled next year.

    “My paramount goal in all off this was to make sure there was no further disruption of the trial or the proceedings, including the sentencing,” said special prosecutor Dave Neal, who handled the case because Will County prosecutors said they could be called as witnesses.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/ct-met-drew-peterson-jeff-ruby-20121220,0,3622887.story

  26. Facs, that post above from the Abood Law Firm (aka Andrew Abood) are quite telling. While he doesn’t come right out and mention Brodsky by name, I would suspect the timing of those posts coincide with his jumping ship from the Dream Team.

    It seems Abood made prior complaints that went nowhere. I guess I’d blast it all over Facebook and media sites too if that’s the response I got from the Bar.

    I dunno…..my crystal ball says that Joel Brodsky will end up in prison right alongside Drew before this is all over.

  27. The FB posts from Abood were from a time when Joel Brodsky refused to pay a fee from an expert witness, claiming that Abood had hired him so he could pay him (this was shortly after Abood had left the team).

    I wonder what the earlier complaint was for and whatever happens to these complaints that don’t end with disciplinary actions?

  28. Joel’s going to end up in the clinker! Don’t forget about those overhears where Joel was to of asked according to Lenny, that he asked Lenny to sabotage the Stacy Ann, and Sharon’s memorial garden for Stacy. I don’t see how Drew could claim that he had ineffective counsel after all those two have schemed together before the trial even got started. The whole thing is going to get laughed out of court. None of them said anything, and were in fact defending one another before Drew got convicted. They were all behind each other up until that point! Drew’s not getting out, it will be a cold day before that happens. Both of their motions are completely ridiculous. I can see them taking this to the bar association for some of his ethical issues. But to try and use it to free a convicted murderer I don’t think it is going to fly. They had plenty of opportunity, including Drew to drop him a long time ago.

  29. I’m with you Lorie….it takes more than an idiot for an attorney to overthrow a conviction…plus the fact he had 5 other attorneys at his disposal every day of the trial….too bad they all can’t do time for their disrespect and attitude….

  30. Facs, my suspicion is that the vast majority of complaints result in internal scolding rather than public sanctions. It becomes a cumulative thing wherein their file gets thicker and thicker until the sanctioning body (the Bar in this case) gets fed up and clamps down. Often the public outcry can help push the sanctions out into the public eye.

    I am dealing with a medical situation right now here in Georgia whereby a physician has had many complaints lodged against him. Except for a public announcement of a 2-year probation on his license for a particularly eggregious violation back in 2002, he has escaped public pronouncements of discipline. It has taken a group of citizens doing some strong investigations which uncovered serious violations to even get the medical board to begin their own investigation. It has now been more than 8 months and the report to the medical board which corroborated our findings was presented in October and then again in November with new, even more damaging evidence. We still await the Board’s decision. He should lose his license. Anything short of that will most likely result in public exposure of the misdeeds, including the Board’s unwillingness to discipline their own.

    It seems that in the case of the Illinois Bar, going public is a way to pressure the sanctioning body to do something rather than slip it under the rug. I would bet that Brodsky’s file is getting thicker by the day.

  31. FYI

    Like most lawyer discipline agencies throughout the country, the ARDC undertakes to investigate any complaint that has even marginal validity, not just the most serious charges. That policy is, in part, the result of the fact that lawyers are investigating their own, and it is facilitated by the fact that lawyers are ethically required to cooperate in any disciplinary inquiry concerning themselves or a colleague. In implementing that policy, Intake counsel screen written submissions from complainants to determine whether the submission, read liberally, describes some misconduct by a lawyer. If not, or if the submission falls within one of a few categories where the Commission has determined to investigate only under defined conditions that do not appear in the case, Intake counsel will close the file, explaining the decision in a letter to the complainant, and notifying the lawyer in writing that a complaint was received but that no response will be requested. In about 25% of the investigations docketed each year, closures are made after an initial review are completed without asking the lawyer to respond, although the lawyer and complainant are typically apprised of the determination and 96% are usually concluded within 60 days after the docketing of the grievance.[2]

    In the remaining 75% of investigations closed by the Administrator’s staff, a determination was made that an investigation was warranted, and, in most cases, these investigations began with a letter from Intake counsel to the lawyer named in the grievance, enclosing a copy of the complainant’s submission and asking the lawyer to submit a written response. The lawyer’s written response was usually forwarded for comment to the complainant, and the file was reviewed by Intake counsel after the complainant’s reply was received or past due. If, at that stage, the submissions and any back-up documentation obtained demonstrated that the lawyer did not violate professional conduct rules, or at least that a violation could not be proved, Intake counsel closed the file. If Intake counsel determined that more expansive investigation was warranted, the file was reassigned to Litigation counsel.[3]

    Nearly half of the files referred to Litigation counsel are usually closed within six months, notwithstanding the fact that investigations are usually assigned to Litigation counsel when there is some evidence to suggest misconduct may have occurred. Accordingly, investigations at this level are more extensive and time consuming, in order to determine if the filing of formal action is warranted based on the evidence produced during the investigation. How long it takes before an investigation is resolved is influenced by whether the lawyer has addressed all concerns raised during the investigation, whether other sources are cooperating with the ARDC’s requests for information, the complexity of the issues, and the amount of information and documents that the ARDC counsel must review.

    On average, only about 4% of the approximately 5,900 investigations docketed each year result in the filing of formal charges because the investigation produced evidence of serious misconduct. Investigations are closed because either the investigation revealed that the lawyer did not violate professional conduct rules or that the lawyer did violate professional conduct rules but the transgressions were minor and did not result in harm to a client or a third party and the responding lawyer acknowledged the mistake and indicated an understanding of the rules and a willingness to honor them in the future. In some instances, the investigation may reveal some evidence of a possible violation of the professional conduct rules, however, there is not sufficient evidence to prove the violation at a disciplinary hearing.

    http://www.iardc.org/article_avoidanxiety.html

    More good stuff at that link!

  32. “Investigations are closed because either the investigation revealed that the lawyer did not violate professional conduct rules or that the lawyer did violate professional conduct rules but the transgressions were minor and did not result in harm to a client or a third party and the responding lawyer acknowledged the mistake and indicated an understanding of the rules and a willingness to honor them in the future.”

    Precisely.

    Here’s the layman’s translation of that sentence, which is the more typical reality:

    Sometimes we believe that the lawyer wasn’t all that bad, so as long as a client isn’t the one doing the complaining, we’ll let him get off with just a slap on his wrist so long as he promises not to do it again. (In the case of a client complaining, they will still try to downplay the behavior, saying something to the effect that this person has been “sanctioned” internally.)

    It is a VERY rare event for a governing board to publicly proclaim that a member has been reprimanded. (I am a Realtor by profession and have seen this numerous times. Working with the medical board has been a real eye-opener. You’d be horrified to know how much is swept under the proverbial rug. I have no doubt the attorney boards across the nation are no different — particularly since an attorney can represent themselves at no cost.)

  33. Thanks for the laugh Joel. That was the most unprofessional piece of legal documentation I have ever read. It was full of grammatical errors and typos.

    My LOL moments were the parts where he accused Steve Greenberg of being a media whore. Too funny!

  34. Aussie, I particularly like the part where Brodsky accuses Greenberg of being “obsessed” with him.

    That is how all narcissists think — everyone is focused on them

  35. Police called in spat between Drew Peterson’s lawyers
    BY DAN ROZEK

    Now police have gotten involved in the nasty spat between Drew Peterson’s lawyers.

    Former lead attorney Joel Brodsky filed a report with Chicago Police after receiving what he called a threatening email Wednesday from his one-time co-counsel, Steve Greenberg.

    According to the police report, Greenberg wrote that if Brodsky didn’t withdraw “false allegations” made earlier in a legal filing, “your failure to retract will have consequences.”

    “This is clearly meant to threaten me, so I notified authorities,” Brodsky said Friday, describing Greenberg as “unstable.”

    Brodsky, however, hasn’t sought an order of protection against Greenberg.

    For his part, Greenberg denied anything in his email was a threat, though he hinted at legal action against Brodsky, who has withdrawn from Peterson’s defense team.

    “In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I would charitably ask him to withdraw slanderous allegations against me and others before moving to have him heavily sanctioned,” Greenberg said.

    Earlier this week, Brodsky filed a court document claiming Greenberg was “mentally ill” and leaked sealed documents to a newspaper reporter during Peterson’s murder trial.

    That legal filing came after Greenberg sought a new trial for the 58-year-old Peterson, arguing Brodsky bungled his defense of the former Bolingbrook cop.

    The fighting between the attorneys has helped delay sentencing for Peterson, who was convicted last September of the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/17164710-418/police-called-in-spat-between-drew-petersons-lawyers.html

Comments are closed.