I wanted to send a copy of this email to both you and Phil so that you both know where I stand.
The PBA has some skin in this. I know that you informed the PBA of your intention to terminate your relationship with Michael. You gave them your reason which appears to me to be acceptable under 1.16. Since they were the LAWYERS who retained your services it is my opinion that they carried the burden of expediting substitution of counsel in accordance with your request. They apparently never did. How that was or was not handled remains a mystery but at least you attempted to fulfill your obligation to insure that Michael would have the advice of counsel.
Statements that were made before and after are another matter. They have hurt Slager. Just as they have harmed your credibility and that of every attorney who handles these type of cases. Statements made before arrest were the direct result of the PBA’s failure to fund your ability to investigate the case and caused you to rely on your clients statements ( a real no no) in preparing a press release and a statement to SLED. Certainly a short call to the Med Examiner would have raised serious issues as would have forthright SLED Agents who could have easily expressed the factual concerns pointing to culpability they had (according to the Chief) from the very beginning. Statements you may or may not have made following your termination are problematic in the news coverage arena but will not ever be of evidentiary value. I can deal with that.