1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:04,000
Speaker 1: The Malaysian State Investment Fund, known as one MDB, is

2
00:00:04,040 --> 00:00:07,720
Speaker 1: at the center of a multibillion dollar scandal involving international

3
00:00:07,760 --> 00:00:11,360
Speaker 1: money laundering and embezzlement, and according to The Wall Street Journal,

4
00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 1: tens of billions of dollars every year moved through opaque

5
00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:18,240
Speaker 1: law firm bank accounts that create a gap in US

6
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:22,439
Speaker 1: anti money laundering safeguards. US law firms are required by

7
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:27,520
Speaker 1: attorney client privileged to protect the confidentiality of pool client accounts.

8
00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:30,720
Speaker 1: My guest is, at least, being professor at Wayne State

9
00:00:30,800 --> 00:00:35,040
Speaker 1: University Law School, at least first tell us about these

10
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:40,279
Speaker 1: pooled accounts of clients money that law firms hold well.

11
00:00:40,400 --> 00:00:44,159
Speaker 1: Forty six states and d c require law firms to

12
00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:48,080
Speaker 1: set up accounts where they pull money they receive from clients.

13
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 1: They then uh take any interest that is earned by

14
00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:55,480
Speaker 1: those accounts and use them for various public interest legal work.

15
00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,920
Speaker 1: So those are called aolta accounts and um. The Wall

16
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: Street Journal estimated that in one year they the interest

17
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 1: earned from those accounts with seventy eight million dollars. From that,

18
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 1: they estimated that the underlying funds were anywhere from thirty

19
00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 1: six billion to four hundred billion dollars that flowed through

20
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,600
Speaker 1: those accounts in a single year. Depending upon how quickly

21
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:21,760
Speaker 1: the money flowed through the accounts, they estimated that the

22
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: money was often there for only a few days or

23
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:29,039
Speaker 1: a few weeks at least. How did this allegedly work,

24
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:34,200
Speaker 1: that the money from Malaysia Malaysian Fund came into these

25
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,280
Speaker 1: law firms. Well, from what I can tell, the Wall

26
00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 1: Street Journal investigation looked at the US forfeiture complaints that

27
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,520
Speaker 1: had been filed by the US Department of Justice, and

28
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: what they did is they traced money that came into

29
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:52,920
Speaker 1: these law firm accounts. For example, they traced four hundred

30
00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:57,200
Speaker 1: and eighty nine million dollars that was deposited into accounts

31
00:01:57,200 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 1: that Sherman and Sterling law firm and later its Sullivan

32
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:04,440
Speaker 1: Cromwell law firm, And those were moneies that were deposited

33
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: by individuals involved in the Malaysian corruption scandal. Now, there's

34
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:16,040
Speaker 1: a difference between what a bank has to say to

35
00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:19,440
Speaker 1: regulators and what a law firm has to say. And

36
00:02:19,880 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 1: the law firm here is using say all the law firms,

37
00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:26,160
Speaker 1: no one has accused the law firms of doing anything

38
00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:30,240
Speaker 1: wrong that they're that they can't say what's going on

39
00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:33,040
Speaker 1: because of attorney client privilege? Can you explain that a

40
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 1: little bit more? Well, the typical anti money laundering rules

41
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:41,799
Speaker 1: require banks, for example, to know their clients, to evaluate

42
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:43,639
Speaker 1: the sources of the funds that are being put into

43
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 1: their accounts, and to report any suspect suspicious transactions to

44
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:52,359
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Um in the United States, lawyers and most

45
00:02:52,440 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: of the rest of the world, including the European Union,

46
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,800
Speaker 1: lawyers are subject to the exact same rules. But in

47
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 1: the United States, the law firms have said, we can't

48
00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:05,000
Speaker 1: provide that information because it would violate attorney client privilege.

49
00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:08,200
Speaker 1: The response to that is, well, when you're performing a

50
00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:12,320
Speaker 1: mechanical duties such as just depositing money into an account

51
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:15,520
Speaker 1: that doesn't involve legal advice, and you ought to be

52
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:18,280
Speaker 1: like the banks are, you should know your customers, you

53
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:21,399
Speaker 1: should evaluate the source of those funds, and report any

54
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: suspicious transactions to law enforcement. But as it stands today,

55
00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:28,560
Speaker 1: the US does not impose that anti money laundering requirement

56
00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:31,639
Speaker 1: on law firms, and so money goes into their account,

57
00:03:32,120 --> 00:03:35,320
Speaker 1: they have no obligation to evaluate it. And now we've

58
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,280
Speaker 1: seen several examples of suspect funds going through those accounts.

59
00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:45,160
Speaker 1: Has the American Bar Association taken a stand on this, well,

60
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:49,280
Speaker 1: They have issued voluntary guidelines to lawyers on anti money

61
00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:53,640
Speaker 1: laundering obligations, So they have a voluntary best practices telling

62
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 1: lawyers that you should be careful about the kinds of

63
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:59,360
Speaker 1: money that you accept into your accounts. But there's nothing

64
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:03,600
Speaker 1: mandat too, And if lawyers don't follow the best practices,

65
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: there's no penalty for them doing that, and and there's

66
00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:13,720
Speaker 1: there's absolutely no rule that that requires them to do

67
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,599
Speaker 1: to do this, to do a double check that the

68
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:19,239
Speaker 1: anti money laundering rules applied to a lot of different

69
00:04:19,279 --> 00:04:22,719
Speaker 1: players in the market. They apply to banks and UH

70
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:27,599
Speaker 1: securities firms, insurance companies, even places like jewelry stores, places

71
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:30,279
Speaker 1: that handle a lot of cash. But the lawyers have

72
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:34,640
Speaker 1: managed to exempt themselves from that list of entities that

73
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:37,080
Speaker 1: have to apply with the anti money laundering requirement. I've

74
00:04:37,080 --> 00:04:40,159
Speaker 1: been talking with at least being professor at Wayne State

75
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:44,640
Speaker 1: University Law School and a former Senate investigator about this,

76
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: and at least the A b A successfully pushed for

77
00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:53,920
Speaker 1: pool trust accounts to be exempt from new federal rules

78
00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:59,240
Speaker 1: requiring financial institutions to know the beneficial owners of accounts

79
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:02,359
Speaker 1: that our name in legal entities such as shell companies.

80
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:07,680
Speaker 1: Does this make it easy for very the super wealthy

81
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:13,640
Speaker 1: to move their money beyond the oversight of government authorities. Well,

82
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,039
Speaker 1: law firm accounts can be a large loophole that wealthy

83
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:20,200
Speaker 1: clients could take advantage of if the law firms allow

84
00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 1: them to do it. If the law firms say, well,

85
00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:25,960
Speaker 1: you know best practices, as I should ask questions, but

86
00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:28,159
Speaker 1: I don't have to legally, and so I'm not going

87
00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 1: to uh, their clients could move suspect money through their accounts,

88
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:36,159
Speaker 1: and that's happened in the past. Give us some specific

89
00:05:36,240 --> 00:05:42,400
Speaker 1: examples of suspect funds or transactions. Well, in addition to

90
00:05:42,440 --> 00:05:45,599
Speaker 1: the Malaysian corruption case, we were just talking about one

91
00:05:45,640 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 1: that I looked at when I worked for Senator Carl

92
00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:51,040
Speaker 1: Levin in the U. S. Senate was Teodoro Obiang, who

93
00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: was the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. We

94
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:56,719
Speaker 1: were able to show that he brought millions of dollars

95
00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:00,719
Speaker 1: and suspect funds into law firm accounts that were opened

96
00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: by lawyers for him in the state of California. He

97
00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 1: used that money to buy a mansion in Malibu, a

98
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:11,760
Speaker 1: personal jet, even Michael Jackson Memobillia, including one of the

99
00:06:11,800 --> 00:06:15,599
Speaker 1: gloves UH. In twenty eleven, the Department of Justice filed

100
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:19,720
Speaker 1: the forfeiture complaint, alleging that all of that property had

101
00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:22,760
Speaker 1: been purchased with funds that were the product of corruption

102
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:27,120
Speaker 1: another wrongdoing. In fourteen, there was a settlement. The settlement

103
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:30,200
Speaker 1: allowed the United States to keep everything except for the jet.

104
00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: So that's one specific example of somebody who deliberately used

105
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:38,679
Speaker 1: lawyer accounts to bring money into the country um UH

106
00:06:38,720 --> 00:06:41,280
Speaker 1: and to get around anti money launding laws that had

107
00:06:41,320 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 1: made it very difficult for him to open accounts in

108
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:47,520
Speaker 1: his own name. A second example is Scott Robstein, an

109
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: attorney from Florida. He was convicted of participating in a

110
00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:54,680
Speaker 1: one point two billion dollars ponzi scheme. He had deposited

111
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:58,279
Speaker 1: millions of dollars into client accounts his law firms client

112
00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:02,120
Speaker 1: accounts at two banks in Florida. Those banks were actually

113
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 1: find over fifty million dollars for failing to ask any

114
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 1: questions about the highly suspect funds going into those accounts.

115
00:07:09,880 --> 00:07:14,720
Speaker 1: One last example, Sixty Minutes recently broadcast a piece about

116
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 1: a sting in which New York law firms were asked

117
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:20,960
Speaker 1: to help um an African minister bring money into the

118
00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:23,600
Speaker 1: United States. It was a sting. It wasn't for real,

119
00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:27,120
Speaker 1: but one lawyer explained to as part of the scheme

120
00:07:27,160 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: that he could bring money into the United States through

121
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:34,680
Speaker 1: his client escrow account. So we know what's happening at least,

122
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:39,160
Speaker 1: what makes the the law firm subject to any kind

123
00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:43,680
Speaker 1: of penalties? Where's the line? Well, there is a you know,

124
00:07:43,760 --> 00:07:46,440
Speaker 1: a federal law, criminal law that says if you facilitate

125
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:49,360
Speaker 1: money laundering and you know you're doing it, then you're

126
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 1: breaking the law and you can be part of a

127
00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:54,920
Speaker 1: conspiracy to commit money laundering. So there is that law

128
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 1: that's out there. But what's going on here is you

129
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:01,360
Speaker 1: have a client of yours and you have no legal

130
00:08:01,400 --> 00:08:04,440
Speaker 1: obligation to ask them where those millions of dollars are

131
00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,520
Speaker 1: coming from that they're putting into your account and then using,

132
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:11,480
Speaker 1: For example, in the Malaysian case, they bought real estate

133
00:08:11,480 --> 00:08:15,320
Speaker 1: in the names of shell companies uh and they nobody

134
00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:18,600
Speaker 1: asked any questions about hundreds of millions of dollars being

135
00:08:18,680 --> 00:08:22,600
Speaker 1: used to purchase that property. We're joined now by Richard Painter,

136
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:28,000
Speaker 1: Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Richard the

137
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:32,200
Speaker 1: Financial Action Task Force, which is an international group to

138
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:37,040
Speaker 1: combat money laundering procedures and puts out rules, has criticized

139
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:41,560
Speaker 1: the US is limited oversight of lawyers. Do you believe

140
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:46,000
Speaker 1: there should be more oversight of lawyers and these funds

141
00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:50,040
Speaker 1: that they hold for their clients. Well, lawyers should certainly

142
00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:54,520
Speaker 1: know what the clients are doing with the money that's

143
00:08:54,559 --> 00:08:58,840
Speaker 1: going into the lawyers trust the account. They should know

144
00:08:58,880 --> 00:09:01,800
Speaker 1: where the money has come from and where it is going.

145
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:05,320
Speaker 1: These are clients of the lawyer, and the lawyer's trust

146
00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 1: account is to be used for matters that are connected

147
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:14,080
Speaker 1: with representation by the lawyer. And so the notion that

148
00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:16,560
Speaker 1: the lawyer just doesn't know what's going on, but they're

149
00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:21,200
Speaker 1: letting their account, uh, their client puns account be used

150
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:25,480
Speaker 1: in this way as absurd. So whether the regulation has

151
00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:27,719
Speaker 1: to be at the federal level or could be at

152
00:09:27,760 --> 00:09:32,079
Speaker 1: the level of the state bar associations, which traditionally regulate lawyers,

153
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:35,440
Speaker 1: is a matter yet to be determined. Which is going

154
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 1: to be the most effective way to do with it. Uh.

155
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:40,000
Speaker 1: We found out back in two thousand and two that

156
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:43,240
Speaker 1: the state bars were not regulating the securities lawyers, and

157
00:09:43,280 --> 00:09:46,520
Speaker 1: then after end Ronald Wilcomed, the Congress decided there was

158
00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:50,080
Speaker 1: gonna be federal regulation security lawyers. So this may end

159
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 1: up in an aspect of lawyer um uh practice of

160
00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:00,160
Speaker 1: law practice. It's regulated by the federal government. SA are

161
00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:05,760
Speaker 1: cracked out, Richard. What about attorney client privilege? Well, the

162
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:10,200
Speaker 1: third client privileges for protecting the commntications from the client

163
00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,120
Speaker 1: for the purpose of the stakehold is seeking legal advice.

164
00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:16,640
Speaker 1: It does not allow the client to use the lawyer

165
00:10:16,679 --> 00:10:20,000
Speaker 1: to perpetrate a fraud or to engage in money laundering.

166
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: There is a client fraud exception to the e sturning

167
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 1: client privilege. So that's not that's not what the privilege

168
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:29,319
Speaker 1: is there for. This has nothing to do with seeking

169
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:32,559
Speaker 1: legal advices, just about using the lawyer's trust account to

170
00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:36,240
Speaker 1: lawn for money, and that's that's not appropriate. Do you

171
00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:39,760
Speaker 1: agree at least that lawyers are perhaps hiding behind the

172
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:43,880
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege? I do, and I think that the

173
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:47,320
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal investigation, because of the examples that they've

174
00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:50,719
Speaker 1: put forward and the huge amounts of money involved when

175
00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: they're estimating thirty six to four billion dollars a year

176
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:57,440
Speaker 1: I think that's really put regulators on notice and banks

177
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:00,560
Speaker 1: on notice that law firm accounts you could be looked

178
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:05,600
Speaker 1: at more carefully. So what's the next step then, Richard. Now,

179
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:09,240
Speaker 1: the next step is for the law firms to very

180
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:13,360
Speaker 1: carefully scrutinize what's going on in their account because they're

181
00:11:13,360 --> 00:11:17,360
Speaker 1: gonna be held responsible for this. There's no way that

182
00:11:17,440 --> 00:11:20,160
Speaker 1: a lawyer can win a straight face say that they

183
00:11:20,200 --> 00:11:22,360
Speaker 1: don't know where the money came from and where it's

184
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:25,079
Speaker 1: going and their client trust account that that doesn't make

185
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:28,800
Speaker 1: any sense. Uh. These are lawyers who represent these clients

186
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:32,200
Speaker 1: and uh in connection with their business affairs. And our

187
00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:35,920
Speaker 1: lawyers are knowingly and letting letting other money coming into

188
00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:38,040
Speaker 1: the account. They don't know where it comes from. And

189
00:11:38,120 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 1: that's that's uh irresponsible, and you know, I think that

190
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:47,240
Speaker 1: is aiding and abetting a client crime. So lawyers need

191
00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:49,800
Speaker 1: to take the initiative here, and if they don't, we're

192
00:11:49,840 --> 00:11:52,440
Speaker 1: gonna have to have the state bar associations cracked out

193
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:55,760
Speaker 1: or once again. And the money laundering laws would apply

194
00:11:55,840 --> 00:11:58,200
Speaker 1: to lawyers as well as everyone else. There's no attorney

195
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:02,720
Speaker 1: clients privilege except into uh the money laundering laws. So

196
00:12:02,800 --> 00:12:05,560
Speaker 1: if the tap to make an example of some paper,

197
00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:07,880
Speaker 1: and that's what they have to do. So at least

198
00:12:07,920 --> 00:12:11,240
Speaker 1: instead of the Bar association, is it more likely that

199
00:12:11,280 --> 00:12:18,160
Speaker 1: we'll see the sec or federal prosecutors going after this. Well,

200
00:12:18,160 --> 00:12:21,200
Speaker 1: that's a possibility. Um. When you look at the Rothstein case,

201
00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:23,920
Speaker 1: they actually had two banks that will find over fifty

202
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:27,840
Speaker 1: million dollars for for allowing this to go on. I

203
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:31,200
Speaker 1: think the next step is for banks to protect themselves

204
00:12:31,640 --> 00:12:33,959
Speaker 1: is to, for example, they could get a certification from

205
00:12:33,960 --> 00:12:36,040
Speaker 1: the law firm that they will not be using their

206
00:12:36,080 --> 00:12:40,320
Speaker 1: account to enable clients to get around the antimoney laundering

207
00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:43,520
Speaker 1: safeguards that the bank otherwise has in place. That's an

208
00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:46,480
Speaker 1: easy thing that banks could do. Uh. The next step

209
00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:49,720
Speaker 1: up is the regulators to impose some special requirements on

210
00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:55,080
Speaker 1: banks to exercise more careful scrutiny of these lawyers accounts. Well,

211
00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 1: I want to thank you both. This is really a

212
00:12:56,600 --> 00:12:59,679
Speaker 1: fascinating area that I think we don't think about enough

213
00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:02,559
Speaker 1: because always thinking about regulation of banks and not so

214
00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:07,199
Speaker 1: much regulation of the law firms. That's Richard Painter. He's

215
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:10,080
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and

216
00:13:10,120 --> 00:13:13,280
Speaker 1: at least being she's a professor at Wayne State University

217
00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 1: Law School and a former Senate investigator. Coming up on

218
00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:21,240
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. We all know our Miranda rights. If you've

219
00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:24,360
Speaker 1: watched TV or you've gone to the movies and seeing

220
00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:27,040
Speaker 1: the police arrest someone, you probably know them by heart.

221
00:13:27,600 --> 00:13:29,840
Speaker 1: One is that you have the right to an attorney,

222
00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:32,880
Speaker 1: and that may seem to be pretty clear, but to

223
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 1: this day, so many years after Miranda, there are still

224
00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:40,960
Speaker 1: cases trying to parse exactly what that means. And in Michigan,

225
00:13:41,240 --> 00:13:44,000
Speaker 1: there's going to be a hearing before the Supreme Court

226
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:48,560
Speaker 1: about whether you're entitled to an attorney at your preliminary hearing.

227
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 1: That's coming up next on Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso.

228
00:13:52,760 --> 00:13:55,880
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg