Amador’s troubles may be mounting

Kim Smith

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 | 11:08 a.m.

If District Judge Joseph Bonaventure and the Clark County district attorney's office decide not to file an ethics complaint against defense attorney Michael Amador, that doesn't mean he is out of the woods.

A website -- members.tripod.com/margaretrudin/ -- has posted a copy of what is purported to be Margaret Rudin's complaint against Amador.

In addition, Rob Bare, the general counsel for the State Bar of Nevada, can investigate the multitude of allegations that have been made against Amador, even without a formal complaint, State Bar President John Mowbray said.

Bare, as general counsel, has the authority to investigate ethics complaints against any attorney, whether he hears about them informally, formally or just from reading a newspaper, Mowbray said.

Bare could not be reached for comment today, and the State Bar is prohibited from divulging whether any investigations have been launched.

District Attorney Stewart Bell said at this point he would leave any action up to the judge.

Bonaventure is said to be mulling over what actions, if any, he should take against Amador in light of revelations that have been made since the end of the Rudin trial.

Among the actions Bonaventure is said to be considering is filing a state ethics complaint against the attorney. He can also hold a contempt of court hearing.

Rudin was convicted May 1 of first-degree murder in the December 1994 death of her real estate developer husband, Ron.

Amador's performance during the trial was widely criticized at the time, but recently more accusations have become public record.

As part of a motion for a new trial and again in a private meeting with Bonaventure, Amador's former secretary, Annie Jackson, has painted Amador as a publicity hound who spent much of his time during the trial using drugs, hanging out with strippers and writing a book.

Many of Jackson's allegations are repeated in the complaint that Rudin reportedly filed with the State Bar.

Nevada Supreme Court rules expressly prohibit attorneys from obtaining book and movie rights from their clients.

Amador has repeatedly denied the accusations, going so far as to release a drug test that indicates he was drug-free on the day Rudin fired him.

When a complaint is lodged, members of the State Bar's staff review it to see if it raises an ethical issue under Supreme Court Rules. If it does, the attorney in question is then asked to file a written response, and the complainant is given the opportunity to respond.

Both responses are submitted to a disciplinary board, and members of the board recommend action. The bar can then convene a hearing.

The bar can privately or publicly reprimand an attorney, suspend him for up to five years or disbar him.