Legal Ethics
Sect Leader’s Daughter Tells Attorney Ad Litem to Step Aside
Posted Jun 23, 2008, 06:16 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The daughter of polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs has told her attorney ad litem in an e-mail to step aside. She sent a copy of the missive to the Salt Lake Tribune.
The teen, 16-year-old Teresa Jeffs, told the newspaper in an interview that Texas lawyer Natalie Malonis is restricting her visits with the people who matter most in her life and has barred her from corresponding with her father, who has been jailed since 2006. The disagreement has created a rift with Malonis.
"The most help you will be to me now is for you to step aside and let me get a different lawyer that I feel like can help me," Teresa Jeffs said in the e-mail.
Malonis has succeeded in getting a temporary order barring Teresa Jeffs from contact with Willie Jessop, a spokesman for the polygamous sect, the newspaper reports. Another hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday.
Malonis told the paper she is trying to keep the girl free of outside influence. "Right now, that's not happening," Malonis said. "There is no question I am absolutely looking out for her. … What's happening is really a shame because people who purport to care about her are really doing her a disservice."
Texas law requires attorneys ad litem to represent their clients’ position in court, unless the clients are not acting in their own best interest, according to the story. Malonis has said in court papers that police believe Teresa Jeffs was spiritually married to an older man when she was 15.
Related Stories
- DA in Cheney-Gonzales Case Shouts at Judge, Who Seeks Higher-Court Backup
Nov 21, 2008, 06:01 pm CST - Slain Judge’s Widow Speaks, Prosecutors Take Heat at Nichols Sentencing
Nov 21, 2008, 01:52 pm CST - Deputy Calif. DA is Charged in Alleged Rape of Colleague
Nov 21, 2008, 01:15 pm CST - Former Mexican Drug Czar Got $450K to Keep Traffickers Informed, Authorities Say
Nov 21, 2008, 11:44 am CST
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by kbp - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 47 minutes ago
Ms, Natalie Malonis is the fox watching the hen house.
I have great sympathy for her client.
Posted by ken - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 28 minutes ago
In order to get the additional restrictions on Teresa, Malonis told the judge that Teresa had given birth and the child was being claimed by another. Malonis said Teresa hadn’t told her whether the baby was a girl or a boy.
Later, after Teresa went to a doctor for proof, Malonis acknowledged that Teresa had never been pregnant.
With a lawyer like this…
Posted by Disgusted - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 27 minutes ago
“There is no question I am absolutely looking out for her”
Ms. Malonis, in light of the above statement, please explain why you did not fight the Grand Jury subpoena served upon you. Testifying before the GJ puts you in the position of revealing privileged information—not to mention contradicting your client and putting her at risk of a perjury charge.
And don’t even try to excuse your egregious behavior by claiming that you, under the law, have a duty to report “abuse’ of your client. You should not be the sole “decider” of whether or not your testimony is required under the law because you have amply demonstrated your hostility toward your own client.
Posted by Boise Leon - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 25 minutes ago
Malonis refused to testify at the GJ. A call was made to Barbara Walthers and she told the GJ to let her off the hook. That is hearsay, but you may be able to get a closer witness by looking for it.
Posted by kbp - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 4 hours, 10 minutes ago
How would the State Attorney General know that an attorney, who is supposed to be representing someone, has ANYTHING to testify to about that “someone”?
Posted by Texas Attorney - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 22 minutes ago
This attorney can’t seem to keep herself out of the newspapers and off TV. In all of this media contact, she’s managed to berate, accuse and belittle her own client—a minor.
Is this how the Texas Bar wants to be viewed around the country?
Posted by Californian - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 54 minutes ago
The California Bar Exam is really tough. Clearly, the Texas Bar is a snap. Look who passed. I may soon take the Texas Bar, but I’ll leave my brain in California since I won’t need it in Texas.