Stephenson v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-10652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Stephenson v. United States, Judge Wood ordered counsel affidavits and required a privilege-waiver response to develop Ryan Stephenson’s petition to correct an old criminal judgment.
Ryan Stephenson, his former trial counsel George Goltzer, his immigration counsel Stacy Lam, and the Government were affected. The order required the lawyers to provide limited sworn testimony and required Stephenson to respond to the privilege-waiver form or explain his refusal.
What happened
In Stephenson v. United States, Ryan Stephenson asked the court to correct an old criminal judgment, alleging that his trial lawyer gave ineffective assistance and misled him about immigration consequences.
The court decided that testimony from trial counsel George Goltzer was needed about the alleged advice and the importance of immigration consequences to Stephenson’s plea. It also decided that immigration counsel Stacy Lam needed to address whether the petition was filed on time. The court ruled that Stephenson had waived attorney-client confidentiality only as needed for those issues.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ordered both lawyers to provide sworn statements by August 4, 2020. The court also required Stephenson to sign and return an informed-consent form by August 3, 2020, or explain in a letter why he would not do so; the court warned that failing to respond may result in dismissal of the petition. The order did not decide whether Stephenson’s petition succeeds.
The detailed version
- Stephenson v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-10652
- Kimba Wood
- July 3, 2020
Background
Ryan Stephenson petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis, a request to correct a prior criminal judgment, based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his trial counsel, George Goltzer, affirmatively misled him about the immigration consequences of his plea. He also alleged that his immigration counsel, Stacy Lam, did not learn that he could seek this form of relief until 2019, which he presented as an explanation for the timing of his petition.
Attorney-Client Privilege
The Government said testimony from Goltzer and Lam might be needed to develop the record. The court ruled that Stephenson’s allegations waived attorney-client privilege as a matter of law to the extent necessary to examine the allegations. The waiver concerning Goltzer covered communications relevant to whether Goltzer misled Stephenson and whether Stephenson placed paramount importance on immigration consequences. The waiver concerning Lam covered communications relevant to whether the petition was timely. The court specifically stated that communications with Lam about whether Stephenson was misadvised or emphasized immigration concerns remained protected because Stephenson’s claim did not rely on those communications.
The court also noted that ethical concerns might otherwise restrict a lawyer from disclosing confidential information about a former client, even when privilege did not apply. The order and accompanying informed-consent form were intended to address those concerns.
Order
The court ordered Goltzer and Lam to submit sworn testimony in affidavit form. Goltzer’s affidavit had to address the ineffective-assistance allegations, and Lam’s affidavit had to address Stephenson’s allegation that she did not learn about this relief until 2019. The Government had to file both affidavits by August 4, 2020.
The court also ordered Stephenson to sign and return the accompanying attorney-client privilege waiver and informed-consent form by August 3, 2020, or file a letter explaining why he would not return it. The form authorized each lawyer to disclose confidential communications only in response to the court’s order and only to the extent necessary for the specified issues. The court warned that failing to return the form or file a letter might be grounds for dismissing the petition. This order required further record development; it did not resolve the merits of Stephenson’s petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.