Update for clarity – I guess asking questions, and soliciting opinion about Mark O’Mara is now tantamount to attacking him ?   *WHISKEY*TANGO*FOXTROT*

No-where in this thread post is there an attack on Mark O’Mara.  To the contrary this is seeking an opinion based on known facts surrounding the case and the revelation that Mark O’Mara was a key decision maker in the agreement to financial settlement with the Martin family.   In short, it was O’Mara’s final nod -albeit perhaps reluctantly- that led to the settlement. 

My questions were/are about propriety, and conflict of interest, and do they exist against the backdrop of his involvement with civil litigation avoidance and his dual-role as criminal defense counsel;  And to what extent, if any, does that impact the criminal proceedings.

Yes,  I personally was surprised to find out that O’Mara would be the one to make the final decision on the settlement agreement with the estate of Trayvon Martin.   In my mind it brings many questions to the surface about appropriate representation.   However, I was actually seeking opinion as to whether or not this fact of O’Mara’s affiliation presents an issue – or not.

The knee-jerk reaction to view such questions as an attack merely solidify my worry that this is indeed an issue.    The responses which reflect a preference not to believe in such a relationship exists cement the concern.   Apparently, this is a troubling digestion for many people and avoidance is easier than reconciliation.   That is unnerving.

Last August we brought you the information about the potential lawsuits by the scheme team against the HOA, and their insurance carriers, for the Retreat at Twin Lakes – The location of the Trayvon Martin shooting.    The contacts went into negotiations and a holding pattern pending the outcome and/or progress of the criminal trial.

At the time two insurance carriers were potentially being sued, Travelers and Liberty Mutual.   Travelers questioned the court  (via suit against Fulton) because their coverage began after the shooting incident of 2/26/12 and they questioned the court about their liability and whether they could/should be a party.   Consequently they were dropped from liability consideration and exited the arena.

That’s not the issue.

Mark O’Mara was a legal resource party to the HOA and identified insurance carrier because of his insight into the case and potential liability/risk for the insured.  In short he was/is  advising them.

Now we find out it was Mark O’Mara, and his specific advice to the carrier, which led to the almost $2 million settlement (not one) between the Martin Estate and the Home Owners Association of the Retreat at Twin Lakes (through their ins. carrier).

How does that specific decision, the advice by Mark O’Mara to settle, speak to the confidence Mark O’Mara carries forward in the potential immunity hearing?

If the settlement is not sealed how will such a public airing of his settlement advice be viewed?  What will it be spun to look like?

Who stands to benefit?

Does this development lend any insight into the willingness or veracity of Mark O’Mara to confront the unified opposition facing his client?

Can you find an upside to these developments, stemming from George’s primary attorney, in the case against him?  If so, can you please share it?

Please note also, as you consider these questions, Benjamin Crump has announced his intentions to also sue George Zimmerman personally.