Joel Brodsky fights subpoena

Today in court Joel Brodsky filed a motion to “quash” a “subpoena duces tecum”. Such a subpoena is a writ issued by a court at the request of one of the parties to a suit; it requires a witness to bring to court or to a deposition any relevant documents under the witness’ control.

Drew Peterson's most recent mug shot

Drew Peterson’s most recent mug shot

Apparently, Mr. Brodsky does not want to hand over his documents concerning his financial arrangements with his former client, Drew Peterson. If his motion is successful he could be allowed to merely bring his records to court with him when he appears (rather than hand them over to the prosecution), or his former co-counsel could be asked to obtain the information that they need by some different means.

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made in a motion filed against Joel Brodsky by Drew Peterson’s attorney, Steve Greenberg. Greenberg claims that Brodsky misrepresented his experience to Mr. Peterson, that his desire for publicity was a conflict of interest in his representation of his client and that he made a legal error when he called to the stand a witness who put Drew Peterson at the scene of Kathleen Savio’s death.

J.P. Morgan Chase was also subpoenaed for records.

The next status hearing is scheduled for February first.

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


35 thoughts on “Joel Brodsky fights subpoena

  1. Drew Peterson Lawyer Fighting to Keep Financial Records Secret
    By Joseph Hosey

    …Attorney Joel Brodsky filed court papers to head off a subpoena for records of his financial dealings with Peterson.

    …Peterson’s attorneys are trying to get their hands on Brodsky’s financial records in hopes of showing Brodsky put his interest in making money in the media and entertainment industries ahead of his client’s welfare.

    According to court papers filed Friday morning, Peterson was “paraded around as a meal ticket” by Brodsky, “not as part of any intelligent, reasonable, well though out competent legal strategy. He was a prop in support of (Brodsky’s) efforts to enhance his own profile.”

    Judge Edward Burmila gave Brodsky one more week to comply with the subpoena. One of the attorneys still representing Peterson, David Peilet, was optimistic that Brodsky would cough up the records.

    “I’m hopeful that he will,” Peilet said. “We’re giving him the opportunity to do it voluntarily.”

    Brodsky did not attend the hearing Friday morning. He failed to respond to a phone message left at his Chicago office.

    Peilet said the money trail will show Brodsky let his greed get in the way of trying to represent Peterson, a former Bolingbrook cop also identified as a suspect in the mysterious October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    “The purpose of us trying to receive this information is the outcome of the case was influenced by money,” Peilet said.

    …”There is not a competent attorney, or jurist, who could look at this testimony and come to any conclusion other than it was one of the worst things to ever happen in a courtroom,” Friday’s filing said.

  2. Looks to me as if there was plenty of greed all around. Wasn’t it greed that made Drew Peterson murder Kathleen Savio so that he wouldn’t have to pay alimony or child support, or share his pension? Didn’t he end up with all of the joint assets as a result of the murder?

    Didn’t he and Joel Brodsky together spend hours scheming how to get money in exchange for media appearances, publicity stunts and press packages?

    No way you could convince me that Drew Peterson was a lamb led astray by this conniving lawyer.

    I don’t think a judge will buy it either.

  3. Peterson attorneys seek Brodsky’s financial records
    By Janet Lundquist

    …Releasing the financial records from his client account for Peterson would not violate attorney-client privilege, said Peterson attorney Steve Greenberg.

    Brodsky attempted to file a statement in response to the subpoena Thursday, which was promptly sent back to him by Judge Edward Burmila.

    “Attorney Brodsky is not to file any documents in this matter without leave of this court,” Burmila’s order said, adding that Brodsky has withdrawn from the case. “The proper response to a subpoena is to file a motion to quash the subpoena.”

    Brodsky filed the motion to quash the subpoena Friday morning after getting the judge‘s permission, Burmila said.

    In December, Peterson attorney David Peilet filed a memo in Will County Circuit Court supporting the defense team’s claims that former lead attorney Brodsky had a conflict of interest and ineffectively assisted Peterson during his trial.

    Brodsky has denied those claims.

    …After a brief court appearance Friday, Peilet headed over to the jail to meet with Peterson and have him sign a letter authorizing Brodsky to release the financials.

    Peilet said they are giving Brodsky a week to hand over the documents, and that he’s hopeful Brodsky will drop his motion to quash the subpoena. If not, Burmila said he would hold a hearing on Brodsky’s motion sometime before Feb. 19.

  4. Elizabeth Brodsky asked why I am following her twitter feed and sharing some of her tweets so I had a little chat with her about people’s interest in her reality show ambitions, given the context of her husband’s current legal problems.

    She says that her desires have nothing to do with the desire for fame and publicity which Drew’s current lawyers’ claim created a conflict of interest in his representation of Peterson.

    She also believes that filing a subpoena removes attorney/client privilege and that all Drew’s team needed to do was send a “curtesy letter” in order to get them. (so she’s acting as if Joel isn’t fighting it, which he is, obviously).

    She once again blames Steve Greenberg for “making a three ring circle 4 press as in sessions Greenberg vs. Karas”.

    So there you have it.

    Oh, and she says that she has been on a reality TV show before.

    So…that’s good to know. 😉

  5. LOL Facs. Were you able to keep a straight face while discussing these details with EB? Congrats if you were… and thanks for all the info. I’m thinking JB finances regarding his escapades with Drew will be eye-popping but doubt that we’ll ever hear all of it. And I hate to think such stupidity could help Drew get a new trial!

  6. I would like to go down in history…as saying….Ellie and Joel deserve each other….and now I know why I don’t watch reality TV…# 2 DP so deserves everything he’s going to get…# 3 Brodsky not only looks stupid..he is an idiot…bringing all this attention to the paper work that he should have turned over in the first place……

  7. It was a twitter chat so luckily my face was under no constraints!

    You’re probably right that we’ll never get the whole truth, but I’ll bet we’ve guessed at most of it.

  8. More events:

    01/25/2013 See Order Signed for Contact Visit
    01/25/2013 Subpoena Duces Tecum – J.P. Morgan Chase
    01/25/2013 Subpoena Duces Tecum – Joel Brodsky
    01/25/2013 Reply to State’s Response To Defendant’s Memorandum Concerning

  9. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems by going down this road all these lawyers are just digging a big hole for themselves and for once I am not talking about Joel……..

  10. Don’t forget “White Noise” as a strategy. It looks just like courting publicity, but by describing this tactic publicly at the beginning, I think he’s spiked their complaint. There’s also the not inconsiderable stumbling block posed by their agreement/collusion right up until the conviction.

    None of this is new. It’s pants.

    BTW Is English EB’s first language?

  11. No kidding, Bucket. It was strategy, it just wasn’t good strategy. Just like his decision to put Harry Smith on the stand was strategy, but not good.

    Brodsky just isn’t very good at strategy.

    I’m hoping the “quashing” is taken care of next week and then Judge Burmila gives the motion for a new trial the quick resolution it deserves on the 19th…and then on to sentencing!

  12. Beats me how one can even claim “ineffective assistance of Counsel” after being thick as thieves for 5 years with the same lawyer and having sanctioned his “counsel” (for whatever it was worth) all that time.

    Besides – wasn’t Drew a Police Officer in his previous life ?

    Shouldn’t that have made him more qualified to be able to select proper representation ??

  13. Bucket, “white noise” is right. Joe seemed breathless with anticipation last night, trying to insinuate that today’s hearing was going to be a “Big” story.

    It’s sickening how much these guys play the game. Every last one of them is a publicity whore.

  14. ROTFL….I just went back to the last thread to see what I missed and saw bucket’s comment to me :))….bucket, you are a gem! ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

    Facs, you truly outdo yourself on this blog, thank you for keeping us all updated :)…I wish I had found this site long before I did. Also, your sharing twitter feeds with us only served to whet my appetite and curiosity so I finally caved in a couple weeks ago and joined just so I can perv Pork Chop, Ellie B and the rest of the dysfunctional defense cast :))

    Now, this is just my opinion folks…I don’t think JB is fighting the subpoena for attention, no…I believe there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know and I believe that JB is still deeply loyal to DP…remember, Joel is said to have told Drew in a letter that if a claim of ineffective counsel was filed, he (Joel) would be forced to testify against Drew and “one other person”. Who this one other person is, we just might find out…, I know that JB can testify to ONLY the claims of ineffective counsel against him….however, financial records and the “money trail” over the past 5 years, makes me think “money laundering”. Drew was a dirty cop whose greed drove him to kill and, as I believe one of Kathleen’s sisters said of him “he is a man with many secrets”….I believe Joel knows those secrets. With Drew facing the rest of his life in prison, Joel’s trying to not only protect those secrets from coming to light, he’s trying to protect his own arse too.

    I think every attorney representing DP should turn over their financial records regarding their representation of him…even Pork Chop “call the next case, I need a new mercedes” Lopez!

  15. when you mentioned DP as a dirty cop..I watched Dr.Phil yesterday…he had these women on that had been pulled over by this cop in LA…instead of a speeding ticket…he flirts….I won’t give you a ticket if you go out with me etc…he got caught and is spending 9 yrs in jail..that happened to me years ago….I was scared…nervous…and glad to be on a busy freeway…I was lucky and got away…it happens more often than not….how often would you believe DP did just that…because he truly believes he’s irresistible…..

  16. Anna, I have absolutely NO doubt DP did just that – and more! He truly does believe he’s irresistible, entitled and above the law…I know because one night in the summer of 2008 at Tailgator’s in Bolingbrook I was unfortunate to have a chance encounter/run in with that monster…..

  17. beautifulkat, you are too kind.
    I’ve no doubt whatsoever that JB knows plenty about how dirty DP is. DP found in Joel the perfect person to brag to. He’s his lawyer, right? Client-attorney privilege? DP must have told him some tales in the back of a limo, in a hotel bar. They both like to talk. DP was up to plenty. He should by rights have been sacked for revealing the identity of a (fellow!!!!) undercover cop to a known criminal, in a swap for drugs. His defense was that he was conducting his own personal investigation….which is also a potential dismissal offense. That’s just a little of what is *known*.

    When he owned a printing business, he used a firearm to intimidate union members.

    Very close, indeed, to his house is an airport with no security, no flight plans need be filed, very near to a truckstop. Disgraced ex-sargeant DP was in charge of the Bolingbrook nighttime policing, taking in both sites. Around the time of Stacy’s ‘disappearance’ a truck driver said it was DP with another in a truck who flashed a badge and tried to block his truck in the parking lot of the truckstop. (He got away and called LE.)

    …and bars are brilliant for money laundering. Just sayin.

  18. I also share the suspicion that Drew’s dealings were not always above the table during his years as a business owner and cop.

    Keep in mind though, that this hearing and the records that are being subpoenaed are about Joel Brodsky and the claims that his representation of Drew Peterson was a conflict of interest.

    Peilet, Greenberg, et al., are claiming that Brodsky’s motive in representing Drew was to make money rather than to get his client acquitted and they are looking for records to back that up.

    I don’t think they would be allowed to ask for or introduce any financial records prior to November 2007 when Joel began to represent Drew and at that time, IIRC, the personal businesses were kaput (printing business was sold in 1999), Drew was about to resign the police force and he was already hard up for ready cash because, although he did (temporarily) give his son about $200k for safekeeping, that was money that he got from his HELOC (he later put the money back). There was also the bit about Stacy taking $25k and running off with it, but of course that didn’t happen.

    J.P. Morgan Chase was previously part of a law suit when Peterson sued them for not allowing him to borrow against his mortgage (if you recall, they denied it on the grounds that he was “imprisoned” and stated that it created a change in his monetary situation). In the complaint (October 2010) Peterson’s assets are listed in an attempt to prove that he had collateral against the loan and only his house, pension, motorcycle and plane are mentioned, IIRC.

    What Joel Brodsky probably does want to hide is the money that he and Peterson received for interviews, photographs, and the video package like the one he and Chrissy did for Nightline. The records will undoubtedly show that some percentage of that was handed over to Joel which could be evidence to prove the claims of conflict of interest/ineffective assistance, etc. It’s never been admitted to by Joel Brodsky but at this point it’s common knowledge that Joel was asking for money or at least bartering for interviews with Drew.

    Brodsky has never disclosed exactly what his compensation was for representing Peterson although he has claimed at times to be “paid” and other times to be working pro bono.

    I’d like to finally know what the arrangement was.

  19. I don’t see how Joel is going to be able to keep from turning over those financials given that Drew is authorizing their release:

    “By directing that a written fee agreement constitutes such a communication, Bus & P C §6149 expressly extends the protection of the attorney-client privilege to written fee agreements.
    This confidentiality is not absolute. A client’s written fee agreement may lose its privileged status, for example, if it is “relevant to an issue of breach, by the lawyer or by the client, of a duty arising out of the lawyer-client relationship.” Evid Code §958. The attorney-client privilege may also be waived. See Evid C §912(a). In fact, a client may waive the privilege by calling an attorney to testify about the contents of the written fee agreement or by expressly consenting to disclosure.”

    and from the Sun-Times story above:

    After a brief court appearance Friday, Peilet headed over to the jail to meet with Peterson and have him sign a letter authorizing Brodsky to release the financials.

    So it would seem that Drew Peterson is on board with disclosing the financials in hopes that by throwing Joel under the bus, he’ll get a new trial.

    Of course…the story doesn’t say that Drew signed it…

  20. LOL Facs, I’m new to Twitter as I mentioned earlier and just recently getting my feet wet and trying to learn how to work it so I can make individual postings and even I’m getting confused :))…have patience with me, I’m a work in progress ha ha ha….I’m a “she” and the pic is me lol.

    I stumbled across this blog 2 weeks after Drew’s conviction and felt like I’d discovered the mother lode :))…I spent days & weeks working backwards reading everything, devouring documents and what have you. There were times I so badly wanted to put my two cents in but was too shy…untill one day my daughter surpised me by creating this name for me on wordpress and posting the pic of my cat whom I adopted when her owner, my best friend passed away from breast cancer.

    I knew you’d figure out who Feisty is LOL!!!

    and…*ahem*…got my halo on and Ellie’s talking ;)….

  21. Bucket, soooo true!…and thanks for the reminder about the printing business, I’d forgotten that one…I think he had “fronts” in everything he did and who knows what he was doing there, creating fake documents and/or ID’s, counterfeit currency maybe?…we can only speculate but one thing is for certain – a narcissistic sociopath always manipulates and always has a scam/s ongoing. Being a cop was the perfect “cover” for him – the power of the badge (which he severely abused) and used to conceal his dirty dealings.

    I too am hoping for the overhears…and the evidence contained in the stolen ISP documents that will answer the question as to where DP was at 10:59am Oct 28,. 2007.

  22. I can’t say how much I’m looking forward to emails, like this one sent to Randy Miller of WGN radio, being entered into evidence:

    To Randy Miller:

    This will confirm that you will be plugging the following establishment at least two times tomorrow and two times on Friday and that the plug will not be connected in any way to Drew Peterson or his attorney.

    The establishment is, Addiction Bar and Lounge which has the absolute best chicken wings in the city. A great place to drink, eat, listen to music, and watch the game.”

    A personal affirmation that you went there and loved the wings would be good.

    Please confirm this agreement and I will confirm Drew’s cooperation on tomorrow’s show.

  23. Or a testament like this from a certain to-remain-unnamed radio personality:

    Brodsky asked amy if he could mention his restaurant and she agreed. I let him mention it once and after the interview he was pissed off at me for not giving him more airtime. I told him if he wanted to plug his restaurant he should buy air time just like everyone else. FYI, we never would pay that pig and his attorney a nickel. Brodsky wanted to send me up wings on my overnight show to plug his restaurant and I told him I would rather choke than eat his food. My luck he would probably poison the wings.

  24. BTW: Didn’t that chicken wing place go broke or was that another one of Joel/Drew/ Siamese Twin/Joined Efforts establishments ?

    If Drew didn’t like being paraded around on Joels behalf, he could have stopped that 5 years ago.

    I find it hard to believe any of these claims by the current Defense team is going to hold any water, but it is going to be interesting to see what dirt is going to be dug up and flung around.

    This may turn out to be much more telling than the actual murder trial …….

  25. Joel’s bar never did do well and closed before a year was over, IIRC.

    Drew was clearly a willing participant in all the shenanigans. He loved it. And if he signed a contract with Joel that gave Joel some percentage of his appearance fees, book royalties, or whatever, it was with his eyes wide open.

    Two of a kind.


Comments are closed.