Rudin lawyer under fire for movie project

Kim Smith

Friday, Aug. 24, 2001 | 11:49 a.m.

Michael Amador, former attorney for convicted killer Margaret Rudin, said Thursday that he is scripting an independent film focusing on his role in the case.

A hearing was scheduled in District Court today to hear arguments as to whether Amador's performance at Rudin's trial was bad enough to warrant a new trial. Questions about Amador's media intentions also were to come up in court today.

Amador was the subject of a mistrial motion based on his unpreparedness and was fired by Rudin after a jury found her guilty of killing her millionaire husband.

The attorney insists that his work on the documentary does not break any rules of the court.

Nevertheless, questions are being raised about his film work because he told the judge early in the case that he was waiving his fees and that he was not pressing for media rights. Now Judge Joseph Bonaventure wants to know if Amador lied.

Amador acknowledged he is working with an independent film director after an e-mail discussing the deal came to light Thursday. The e-mail was written to Amador by Alexander Gray, a self-proclaimed film director who could not be reached for comment.

Amador said he decided to write the documentary because media coverage failed to present the truth about him and the Rudin case.

"Once I was no longer Margaret's counsel, I started writing a treatment about my life and my work," Amador said. "There's nothing wrong with that. It isn't illegal or wrong. I appreciate the Vegas media for giving me the idea."

Amador said he is upset, however, that his personal e-mail had been leaked to the public.

He has asked FBI agents to investigate how his personal e-mails were obtained and distributed.

Rudin, 58, was convicted May 1 of murdering her husband, Ronald Rudin, following a 10-week trial.

Bonaventure is scheduled to hear the arguments today regarding whether a new trial should be granted.

The judge also wants to know if Amador lied to him about media rights, and if his interest in profiting from the case influenced his performance.

Amador became Rudin's attorney in August 2000 after telling Bonaventure he had agreed to waive his fees.

Almost immediately, however, questions about Amador's performance and true motive for taking the case began circulating throughout the courthouse.

In October 2000 Amador told Bonaventure that he had not obtained media rights from Rudin. The defense attorney even pointed out that it would be unethical for him to do so.

The only way he would get paid, Amador said, was if Rudin inherited funds.

The question continued to arise, however.

When Rudin fired Amador one week after her conviction, she told Bonaventure she had signed three different contracts with Amador, two of which gave him media rights.

Prosecutors Chris Owens and Gary Guymon said at that time that they had long been investigating Amador and the possibility of media projects. They vowed to keep investigating.

They renewed their pledge when Rudin's new attorneys filed their motion for a new trial last month. The motion included an affidavit from Amador's former secretary, Annie Jackson.

Jackson claims Amador came back to his office after telling Bonaventure he had no such contracts and told her to hide them in his safe.

Jackson also said Amador still has a number of personal items belonging to Rudin.

According to the motion for a new trial, "These things included disks with book information, clothing, pictures and things that Mr. Amador could use in a movie or book. He told Margaret Rudin that he had lost them because he did not want to return them."

Bonaventure and the attorneys in the case spoke with Jackson about her allegations July 19.

Jackson told them Amador fed negative information about Rudin to the National Enquirer to drum up interest in the case for a book he began writing in the middle of the trial.

During that meeting, Bonaventure said he could convene a contempt of court hearing, file a state bar complaint, do nothing or investigate further.

Owens said Thursday Bonaventure is still pondering his options.

Courthouse observers say it is unlikely Bonaventure will take any action because Rudin has already filed a state bar complaint against Amador.

The prosecutor said he was not surprised by the contents of the e-mail, but he isn't sure if it poses an ethical violation.

Owens said research needs to be done to see if an attorney can profit from a case once he is no longer associated with it. The date on the e-mail is July 12. Amador was off the case then, but it is unclear when he struck the deal.

Amador, who denies all of Jackson's claims, insists the documentary is about him, not Rudin.

"I never had a contract to write a book. I never had a contract to make a movie," Amador said. "Margaret probably has dozens because she sold the rights to everyone she could."

Amador said he has no intention of being at today's hearing.

"I'm going to watch the Yankees beat up the Angels," he said.