Questions arise about the negligence of Britney Spears lawyer Samuel D. Ingham
The world is still reeling from Britney Spears’ statement in court on Wednesday. We all suspected/knew that Britney’s situation was bad, but she laid out in plain terms just how awful it’s been for years, and just how much she’s been used and abused by her father, by her family and by every single person with any kind of power or authority over her life. Another reason why this was such a big moment in Britney’s life is because it will likely jump-start a new era in how her conservatorship functions and it might even end her conservatorship entirely. The problem is that Britney’s lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, has still not filed papers to end the conservatorship. Britney’s statement came during a hearing to remove Jamie Spears as conservator and have him replaced with Jodi Montgomery permanently. It was clear from Britney’s statement that she simply wants to be done with all of this though. So why hasn’t her lawyer filed to get the conservatorship removed? That’s the question other lawyers are asking:
Before Britney Spears broke her public silence on Wednesday regarding the long-running legal arrangement that has controlled her life, calling it abusive in an urgent and emotional speech, the man appointed to represent her in court for the last 13 years said he had no role in what she was about to say.
“These are entirely her words,” said Samuel D. Ingham III, a lawyer for the singer since 2008, when she was deemed incapable by a judge of hiring her own counsel. When Ms. Spears said this week that, under the arrangement, she had been forced to perform, take debilitating medication and remain on birth control, among other claims, she drew attention to the question of whether Mr. Ingham had done enough to educate and support his client, as the law requires.
“I didn’t know I could petition the conservatorship to be ended,” Ms. Spears, 39, told the judge during a live feed of the hearing. “I’m sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn’t know that.” She added, “My attorney says I can’t — it’s not good, I can’t let the public know anything they did to me. He told me I should keep it to myself, really,” the singer said.
Mr. Ingham did not respond to requests to comment Thursday on how his client’s portrayal of him in court corresponded with his own view of his counsel, and it is unknown what discussions the two have had about whether or how Ms. Spears could ask to end the conservatorship. But the dramatic courtroom moment illustrated their frayed relationship, and the inherent conflicts that exist in a conservatorship system in which Ms. Spears has been forced to pay a lawyer she did not choose for herself.
“It’s certainly troubling that this has gone on for so long if she has wanted to end it,” said Rebekah Diller, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law and an expert on guardianships. “It’s hard to know exactly what’s gone on behind closed doors, but in general one would hope she has been told that throughout the years, because it’s a critical right she was entitled to.”
Last year, Mr. Ingham began seeking substantial changes in the conservatorship, including some steps toward Ms. Spears’s requested removal of her father as conservator. And in her remarks, Ms. Spears noted that she and Mr. Ingham had developed a closer relationship of late, speaking about three times per week. Still, Ms. Spears said on Wednesday, she wished to hire her own lawyer. After Ms. Spears’s remarks, Mr. Ingham said he would step aside if asked, but the current judge in the case, Brenda Penny, did not lay out in detail what the next steps would be to address Ms. Spears’s concerns about the conservatorship or her legal representation.
Sarah J. Wentz, a trusts and estate lawyer for Fox Rothschild, said that given what Ms. Spears presented in court, she “can’t even fathom” why Mr. Ingham had not been prompted to file to terminate the conservatorship. “If he knew what she was saying, he should have been prepared,” she said. “If he did what a lawyer is supposed to do, he would have met and found out she wants to terminate.”
My guess is that Ingham knows he’s being paid by Jamie Spears and not, technically, Britney Spears. But still, Ingham has a sworn duty to represent his client and his client’s interests. What he did and didn’t do for Britney is not only negligent, it could conceivably get him disbarred, especially if he failed to inform his client about her fundamental human rights. There is absolutely no reason why Ingham did not file a swarm of legal notices when Britney was like “they’re forcing me to keep my IUD in” or “they put me on lithium as punishment for not wanting to do the Vegas residency.” There is no excuse for Britney being so uninformed of her rights.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pLHLnpmirJOdxm%2BvzqZmcGphZn55e9CunKysmaS7tKvAq6CsnY%2BWr7DB05iroZ2Po7KouMignKeblZS8p6vBq6CtppWurLS8xJqprJeclsS6sdGYqpqlpZq5oLC%2BoqWgoJGifA%3D%3D