Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2005 | 9:44 a.m.
Former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone will continue to be represented by Dominic Gentile after a federal judge denied a government motion to remove the attorney from the ongoing political corruption case.
U.S. Attorney Dan Schiess had alleged that there were several potential conflicts of interest for Gentile because of his past representation of former strip club owner Michael Galardi, his current representation of Galardi's father and of a subject of the ongoing federal grand jury political corruption probe.
U.S. Magistrate Lawrence Leavitt disagreed in an 11-page written ruling filed Tuesday stating that, "There has been no showing of a serious potential for conflict."
Gentile, reached at his home Tuesday evening, said that he has continued working on Malone's case while the judge has considered the disqualification motion filed last May.
"I've read the order and it is correct," Gentile said. "It's a very clear analysis."
Gentile said that had Leavitt granted the motion it probably would have set the case back, "a couple of years" while new counsel for Malone was obtained and brought up to speed.
Malone, County Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and former Commissioners Dario Herrera and Erin Kenny have been charged with trading political influence for money and gifts from Michael Galardi, who once owned several Las Vegas strip clubs.
Malone, Kincaid-Chauncey and Herrera all have pleaded innocent, but Kenny and Galardi have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors. Kenny and Galardi have yet to be sentenced.
Malone is also facing similar political corruption charges in San Diego involving allegations of illegal campaign contributions made by Galardi to some of that city's councilmen. Galardi has also pleaded guilty in that case.
A trial is tentatively scheduled for March 8, although attorneys are not confident that they will be able to listen to and absorb more than 100,000 conversations recorded through FBI wiretaps by then.
The government's motion pointed to three seperate occasions during which Gentile had an attorney-client relationship with Galardi in the past.
Leavitt found that the first, a legal challenge to a proposed city ordinance in San Diego that would have limited certain activities at San Diego strip clubs in 1996, fails as a potential conflict because the ordinance was not enacted and no legal action was pursued. In addition the contact did not relate substantially to the charges in the current case, and Gentile's involvement was largely limited to locating experienced California counsel to represent Galardi, the order states.
Secondly, allegations were made that Gentile represented the Las Vegas strip club industry, including Galardi's clubs, in a 2001 issue involving taxi drivers allegedly demanding kickbacks from the clubs. Leavitt found that Gentile did not have an attorney-client relationship with Galardi during that issue.
Finally Leavitt found that an Aug. 29, 2001, telephone conversation between Gentile and Galardi did not involve the giving or seeking of legal advice, and in fact concerned a prospective business deal.
The motion went on to allege a potential conflict in Gentile's ongoing representation of Galardi's father, Jack Galardi, who owns several strip clubs on the East Coast and is now, after his son's conviction, the sole shareholder of Cheetahs Las Vegas.
Schiess contended that a potential conflict exists because of allegations that Michael Galardi skimmed money from Cheetahs, and that if Malone were to cross-examine Michael Galardi during trial any admissions from Michael Galardi could expose Jack Galardi to possible criminal charges.
Jack Galardi has filed a civil suit against his son, alleging that his son skimmed money from Cheetahs, and Gentile says he has heard no evidence that Jack Galardi was aware of the alleged skimming while it was occurring.
Leavitt found in his order that Gentile would have no reason to "pull his punches" in a cross-examination of Michael Galardi, and that a vigorous attack on his character and credibility would not only serve Malone's interests in the case, but Jack Galardi's interests in his civil suit.
Finally the government alleged that Malone and the grand jury subject also represented by Gentile may have opposing interests and one may decide to cooperate with the government against the other.
Leavitt canvassed both Malone and the subject, whose identity has not been revealed and has not been charged with a crime, and was convinced that neither one had any intention of cooperating with the government. Leavitt also found that both had a "strong desire to waive conflict-free counsel and to continue to be represented by Dominic Gentile."
While the order admits that there is a possibility of a conflict with Gentile and the grand jury subject, Leavitt states that the mere possibility of a conflict is not enough to disqualify Gentile.
Both Malone and the grand jury subject have been approached by the government to cooperate in the ongoing case and have refused. The judge states that it is improbable that the government would solicit the cooperation of Malone or the subject and risk creating an actual conflict bouncing Gentile from the case causing a substantial delay and possibly multiplying proceedings in both the Las Vegas and San Diego cases.
Gentile declined to reveal the identity of the grand jury subject who is his client.
Gentile does represent developer Don Davidson, vice president of Triple Five Development Corp., who has received a letter from the FBI indicating that he has been recorded on some of the more than 100,000 wiretaps collected in the case.
A source close to the investigation has said that Davidson paid Kenny $200,000 as part of a deal to get a controversial drugstore development passed by the commission. Gentile, on Davidson's behalf, has said that isn't true.
archive
