I talk about Terri Webster in today’s column. She’s the only one of all the former city officials to be ensnared in all three of the prosecutions and enforcement actions to come as a result of the city’s pension scandal.
But there’s one other point that I didn’t fit in. Did anyone else notice the statement that was publicized from her attorney, Frank T. Vecchione?
Vecchione was only one of two lawyers of the defendants in the SEC case who responded to reporters after the charges were filed. Here’s how his statement begins:
The facts will clearly demonstrate that all city officials and staff members acted in good faith and with honest intention with regard to the bond offerings by the city of San Diego.
Is he speaking for the group of defendants? Let’s rephrase that: Is he speaking for every current and former “city official” in San Diego? Why would he feel like he has to do that?
Occasionally, I give a call out to the lawyers who read these posts to send back some insight. So let me ask you to do it again: Vecchione represents only Webster in these charges yet he feels it necessary to proclaim the innocence of all city staff. Everyone.
Am I wrong that lawyers see their jobs to vigorously defend the interests of only their clients? And if that’s true, does this mean that proving the innocence of all city staff is the only route Vecchione sees to setting Webster free?
Do you have to prove that nothing went wrong in order to prove that Webster didn’t do anything wrong?