A few days ago someone shared a link to an Orlando Sentinel article which outlined a Florida BAR investigation into Mark O’Mara. Then ABC News came out with a similar article.  Both media reports generally vague in their descriptives.
O'Mara Zimmerman
The Orlando Sentinel pulled one of their now infamous switcheroo’s and took down the content of their original article (Jeff Weiner – 12/16) replacing it with this one (Rene Stutzman – 12/17) and intentionally not noting the change, or informing readers. They have done this numerous times in the past:

[…] The bar confirmed Monday that O’Mara was the subject of an ethics complaint but provided no details, including who filed it and what allegations it included. (O.S. Link)

You can identify the O.S. manipulative switcheroo because the link was posted to The TreeHouse at 8:40pm December 16th –  and the date is visible in the actual full link:  https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-omara-complaint-20131216,0,3523757.story (where 20131216 is 2013, 12-16 year/date)
Yet if you follow the link you end up at an article dated 3:55pm  Dec 17th.  So what they did was delete the content of the article (written by Jeff Weiner) and replace it the next day with content written by Rene Stutzman.    Putting the 12/16 Weiner article content in the proverbial disappearing hole.  As if it never existed.   Ask yourself why?
Subsequently, immediately after the original Weiner report (12/16 now gone) ABC News (Mark Mooney) published this accounting:

The Florida attorney who helped George Zimmerman beat a murder charge for the death of teenager Trayvon Martin is now being investigated for how he handled the case.
“The Florida bar has one case pending at staff in regard to Atty. Mark O’Mara’s representation of George Zimmerman. All other information is confidential at this time, as is the case with all open investigations,” the bar said in a statement to ABC News. (link)

* Note – in both the Orlando Sentinel and ABC News report the generic term “The BAR” is used. Who in the BAR?   They don’t say, Why?
* Note also –  the origination in the articles is never discussed. The BAR is investigating because of…..?   Did someone file a complaint?
But the Bigger Notation that everyone overlooks is: How did both the Orlando Sentinel and ABC become aware of such an “investigation” ?   How did the media even know there was one ? No-one seems to be asking that question.
*cough* Christine O’Connor? *cough* I digress.
George Zimmerman Trial
Follow the trail.    Then, the following day, Mark O’Mara posts an explanation from his O’Mara Law Blog. His explanation is lengthy and claims it was he, himself, who initiated the BAR inquiry. Two things to remember before you read the O’Mara explanation:

  • #1) He is an attorney who “parses” the structure of presentations with professional obfuscations.  The terms “investigation”, “inquiry”, initiated”, “complaint”, are all given a good deal of semantic washing.
  • #2) The “inquiry” is directed to the “Defense Fund” or PayPal Account ( <– this becomes important later)

[…]  I knew mounting George’s defense would be a costly endeavor. If there were people from around the country willing to contribute to a defense fund — and there were — I felt those donations would afford George a much more aggressive defense than he would have received had we declared indigency, and I was right. Taking the risk of coordinating and promoting an independent defense fund proved crucial to providing George with a fair trial, and I feel doing so was part of my obligation to zealously represent my client.

Likewise, the intense media scrutiny and negative press that descended on my office when I took the Zimmerman case threatened to interfere, not only with my ability to properly conduct George’s defense, but also my ability to maintain my regular practice. In the first weeks, the volume of inquiries overloaded the technical infrastructure of my office, and managing the public interest became an overwhelming on-going task. Ignoring the press would have invited one media crisis after another. In a high profile case like the Zimmerman case, the press has to be managed in an organized, affirmative matter, and in the information age, that includes the use of a website and social media. We crafted a media policy and launched our web properties, and I can say unequivocally that they proved essential to our ability to conduct the legal case in the crucible of the media spotlight.

In response to my request for information regarding the proper way to manage a defense fund and an online presence, The Florida Bar opened an inquiry, which included very specific questions regarding our policies for each and how we were conducting ourselves. We responded promptly and to The Florida Bar’s satisfaction, and the entire matter was deferred until after the trial. Although no further action has been taken since the verdict, the file has remained open. Yesterday, in response to a very specific question from the press, The Florida Bar followed their policy and confirmed that there was an “open matter” regarding me and the Zimmerman case.

Generally, The Florida Bar discourages public comment on pending matters, but in this instance, and since the matter was reported in a completely incomplete manner, and in a way that opened opportunity for inaccurate speculation, I’ve decided to respond. I am certain that matter will be closed shortly, and that the conclusion will suggest that we handled these new and novel approaches in an appropriate and ethical way. Not only have I done nothing wrong in regards to how we managed the defense fund and the online presence for the Zimmerman case, but I think we also set the standard for how these matters should be handled in future high-profile cases that warrant such measures.

In conversation with the Ethics division of The Florida Bar, when I first discussed this with them late April of 2012, they forwarded an article from Slate.com that they reviewed which addressed these issues, including a discussion with New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. (continue reading)

Slight Problem, the Slate.com article was not written in April 2012. It was not published until May 4th of 2012. Setting that aside and reviewing the explanation NBC News Posts the following:

[…]  George Zimmerman’s former lawyer, Mark O’Mara, who is the subject of an “open investigation” by the Florida Bar, said Tuesday that he has done “nothing wrong.”

In a written statement, O’Mara said the matter stems from an inquiry he made to the bar association, seeking guidance on the “proper way to manage a defense fund and an online presence” while he was defending Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge for the shooting death of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

The attorney said he knew that representing Zimmerman would be costly and he decided that soliciting donations online would allow him to mount a more aggressive defense than declaring his client indigent.

His office, O’Mara said, was strained by the onslaught of media inquiries, so he decided to create a website and social media accounts for updated.

“Not only have I done nothing wrong in regards to how we managed the defense fund and the online presence for the Zimmerman case, but I think we also set the standard for how these matters should be handled in future high-profile cases that warrant such measures,” O’Mara wrote.

He also said that the probe by the Florida Bar was actually initiated by an request from his office and he was “certain that the matter will be closed shortly.”

“In response to my request for information regarding the proper way to manage a defense fund and an online presence, The Florida Bar opened an inquiry, which included very specific questions regarding our policies for each and how we were conducting ourselves,” O’Mara wrote.   (the NBC article continues)

zimmerman-042-070813
However, one news outlet, CBS-TAMPA, actually did leg work, actually documented their reporting, and actually put citations with their story in contrast to the other articles which are regurgitating the same information.    AND you might find the following actually cited media report of more significant value:

CBS – TAMPA: — The attorney who helped get George Zimmerman acquitted of murder charges earlier this year is being investigated by the Florida Bar after a complaint was filed against him.

Florida Bar spokeswoman Francine Walker said in an email Tuesday that there was a pending complaint against Mark O’Mara regarding his representation of Zimmerman.

She said the complaint is at the “staff investigation level” and that she couldn’t provide any further information due to confidentiality rules.

A spokesman for O’Mara said he planned to release a statement later Tuesday. He no longer represents Zimmerman in criminal matters.  (link)

Putting all of this into context here is what we do know and what we’ve previously outlined.
OMara-Zimmerman-first court appearanceIn April of 2012, the BAR sent a letter to Mark O’Mara inquiring about the money from the PayPal account of his client George Zimmerman.
It was NOT an initial inquiry initiated by Mark O’Mara – it was an internal inquiry begun by the Florida BAR as a result of O’Mara’s public claim (widely on TV media) that he was taking control of George Zimmerman’s defense funds (the PayPal account).
The inquiry to O’Mara law firm was initiated due to O’Mara’s BAR supervised and numbered client funds account never recording a deposit in the amount noted in his public appearances discussing the money ($200k+).
His response to the BAR was as he describes above, however he makes it seem like it was more than the financial structure – which was the primary inquiry – and directed to the Social Media.
O’Mara was setting up a different style of surrogated client fund, one he had never done before, and one which would be outside of the normal surrogated client account.  His new account would be supervised by his friend and former IRS tax attorney, outside of the FL BAR purview and oversight.
The Florida BAR did not feel comfortable with this response, structure and their inability to provide oversight, and held an inquiry open.
THE CONCERN:   At the same time he took possession of ALL GZ’s financials, O’Mara purchased the building next door to his office, set up Timber Run Enterprises LLC (limited liability corporation) and leased back office space from the Corporation to his law firm on a 99 year $1/lease (a common corporation set up with beneficial tax purposes: depreciation of assets, income etc).
However, Timber Run Enterprises LLC then charged Zimmerman’s Defense Fund for rent on the building – that rent payment was made to Mark O’Mara.
O’Mara initially stated he took the case pro-bono, however he later billed George Zimmerman for $2.5 million at the conclusion of the case.

Share