What Did Brian Laundrie & Attorney Talk About?

After Brian Laundrie left Wyoming, he was in a bad way. At some point, he informed his parents that Gabby Petito was not with him driving back. Whether Brian also informed his parents, Christopher and Roberta Laundrie, of her death, he undoubtedly explained he had a serious problem and didn’t know what to do. Mr. and Mrs. Laundrie then contacted a New York lawyer, Steve Bertolino. They eventually met Thursday, , Sept 23, 2021, in Orlando, Florida  to discuss the case.

This was after Brian’s federal arrest warrantwas signed on Sept 22. Brian was not reported to be present. They were tailed by the FBI,  who even entered the library behind them, according to reports. The Laundries had undoubtedly talked with Bertolino before on the phone, but perhaps met to exchange funds for the retainer and discuss the matter without fear of compromise.

After this meeting, Bertolino stated: “It is my understanding that the arrest warrant for Brian Laundrie is related to activities occurring after the death of Gabby Petito and not related to her actual demise. The FBI is focusing on locating Brian and when that occurs the specifics of the charges covered under the indictment will be addressed in the proper forum.”

Interestingly, Steve Bertolino does not appear in the FL Bar Directory, suggesting he is not a member. The same is true for Wyoming, although Steve could appear in a FL or WY case via pro hac vice, or using a local attorney to allow his appearance. Bertolino may be a member of the Federal Bar, though, were the case to be taken into Federal Court.

So, what did the three initially discuss? The following is just a guess, but based on events and statements made, is likely close to what was covered. First, Bertolino initially informed them that whatever they told him was off the record, because of attorney/client privilege. All US state bars have this rule. The FL rule here is: 

RULE 4-1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION (a) Consent Required to Reveal Information. A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent

Second, after hearing the general nature of the situation, Bertolino undoubtedly told Brian he must not discuss the case with anyone, period -- whether friends, media or police. And that to direct any questions to him, the attorney. Third, Bertolino would have informed the Laundries that Brian’s entire future depended on their discipline.

Now, the next steps are more fascinating. Because, apparently, some level of deception seems apparent with at least Brian’s conduct. It appears as if a plan were hatched to help Brian evade arrest. Could the attorney have provided such a plan? This would imply misleading authorities, which is illegal. The FL Rule on this is: 

RULE 4-4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.

Generally, an attorney should not aid a client in the furtherance of illegal activity. Therefore, we should not assume attorney Bertolino advocated any illegal activity to the Laundries. What if he had suggested leaving before Brian was charged? That doesn’t seem to be technically illegal. But could the Laundries have had a hypothetical discussion on what the legal ramifications would be if Brian attempted to flee, or left the country after being charged with a crime? It seems this would not be out of line, and perhaps necessary to address all related issues.

Bertolino and the Laundries would have certainly discussed the crimes of murder, in the first and second degree, as well as manslaughter and self-defense killing. He would have addressed the elements of these crimes, and possible punishments, as found in Wyoming Code TITLE 6 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE. 

At some point, Bertolino would have probably talked by phone to Brian. But was it a safe line, could it have been tapped? As a represented person, the authorities should not have been able to do so. Certainly, in the beginning before Gabby was known to be missing, Brian should have been at liberty to speak at ease with Bertolino.

More questions remain, than answers. But the real lesson from this entire story is that if a person runs into legal difficulty, they should immediately contact a lawyer and have a conversation regarding the legal implications. This is not to suggest that if Brian Laundrie is guilty of murder he should get off. Quite the contrary. But remember, as United States residents, we are all innocent until proven guilty and that legal representation is a constitutional right for everyone charged at law.

Support Canada Free Press

VIEW Comments