Little Rock attorney Lloyd Warford sent the following message, in response to my article yesterday stating that a Connecticut lawyer had filed a complaint against him with the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct. The complaint criticized Warford for failing to immediately report knowledge he later acknowledged having that Kent Arnold, the jury foreman at the trial of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin, considered the teenagers guilty before the start of their trial.
“I can’t comment on the ethics complaint directly, but here is what I think I can say about the case in general and the not so sealed, sealed affidavit. I was initially hired to represent Gerald Arnold by Kent Arnold. At a later date (exact date unknown but during or shortly after the trial) I was hired to represent Kent Arnold. I represented Kent Arnold for around a year.
“I have spoken with Kent Arnold about all this and he has asserted in no uncertain terms that he considers all of our communications to be covered by privilege. Therefore, until such time as a court of law, the ethics committee or some other lawful body rules there is no privilege, I will abide by my former client’s assertion of attorney/client privilege.
“I know it is hard for people to understand, but I was Kent Arnold’s attorney; it was my job to advise and to protect him. I continue to have a duty to protect him as to things that occurred during that time period. As far as I am concerned, the only circumstances where I would have been ethically compelled to report Kent Arnold’s conduct or statements to authorities would be if he had indicated to me in advance he was about to a commit a crime, and that never happened.
“I want to say that I understand the frustration of those who have fought so hard for the WM3 with how slow and unfair our system can be. I also applaud their perseverance and victory.
“I have to add that I deeply regret the fact this case has caused so many liberal thinking people to take so lightly the confidentiality of communications between attorneys and clients. The vast majority of the time it is the prosecution that is seeking to force an attorney to testify against their client. The attorney/client privilege is at the very heart of what I do and it is not generally in the interest of defendants to undermine the privilege.”
