I've read criticism directed at her attorney but she comes across to me as pretty darn good.
You think so? I guess it depends on what your' looking at. I agree she made good points, was fairly quick thinking and showed her client I guess he was worth the $$ she is being paid bu doing and saying as asked to by Donna.
I'm a bit surprised the judge didn't come down a bit harsher on them both but maybe knowledge of live coverage does that or maybe he's truly that nice, not been what I've seen generally in life considering the claims did not belong in front of him and Donna had no respect for the court nor behaved as would be wise.
The judge made it clear it was not his power or right to interfere in the decisions of the sheriff and jail and they weren't attempting to resolve this in the correct forum. An attorney would or should know this and so I don't know if I'd call her good in that respect or if a "show" was wanted and she sure didn't win. Half the claims they had made per news and filings were not even argued. Furthermore, she made it clear and had to admit most of what she did argue she had no firsthand knowledge of and had not seen herself and so Donna was on her own as to whether such were even true. So overall, all of that makes her look inexperienced and starting right out wasting the Court's time without much foundation. Additionally she had never asked for Donna's medical file from the jail and more before proceeding with this and couldn't confirm things from it. Oh she did make it a mini trial questioning a jailer was it who isn't the one to know all she was asking.
At best it was a show for her client or TV and at worst she isn't very good and hadn't done her homework or tried with the correct avenues first and wasted the Court's time.
The judge made it clear with his questioning of what they tried to sn*w, that she is being treated no differently when someone has threatened self harm than anyone else would be. She had a few good arguments against some of it or tried to get there but she hadn't done her homework and again she couldn't back it up, hadn't inquired, claimed she had tried to make contact but couldn't back that up with an email to the jail or anything else. Or again Donna's medical file.
And so I can see what you mean that she did not lie down and argued well and was quick on her feet to a point and represented her client but overall she was in the wrong, without basis and either is inexperienced or did this for show, some big emergency basis per the news they gave it, etc. She could not back up almost a single claim by her client nor say she knew such to be true or that she was being treated differently and so on.
Imo the judge could have come down harsher on her and he didn't but he very quietly and effectively pointed out repeatedly without even having to point it out that she was in the wrong, he has no power to interfere and wouldn't do so, that court is not the right way to handle it and the other side quietly without show pretty much showed she had not done her homework. So I wouldn't call that a good attorney in summary.
And again the judge was nice and could have come down a lot stronger in the fact she wasted the court's time, they had no basis and she had not done her homework and this gained them nothing and certainly did nothing for public perception either.
Donna was sneery and spoke out as you don't do at court like some spoiled rich woman who doesn't realize she's under arrest and not at the Ritz or even the Hilton.
Boy this entire family really is something else.
The most interesting thing really out of all of it and I'm not sure I think such should be allowed to go on IS Charlie's attorney went to see Charlie but instead used his time or part of it and his access to the jail to see Donna. All in all showing a working together and then he reported apparently to Donna's attorney, etc. And I'd say too probably to Charlie, etc. Mom and son in the same jail, how convenient. Charlie's atty is able to work with and see his client and has access and clearly Donna's atty and Donna were yelling within a couple of days of her being jailed and hadn't even done the work to set up access or waited until she was decided not to be a risk to herself and nothing was urgent and again half of the claims had no substance or weren't brought up nor argued. And she couldn't back up anything.
Her best argument was that Miami was it? Cleared her and had her in gen pop but that held no weight either for a few reasons I don't have time to go into and again she was addressing it in the wrong place and in the wrong way. And had not done her homework.
She made a show at the end when the other side said there was no attempted contact with them of asking for their business cards and email, etc. I guess so she could show in the future she had tried, etc. and to cover herself.
I have no idea what people were saying about her but all in all for these reasons, I don't think she's very good. She WAS good in arguing on her feet and staying the course but she also was not admonished or come down on hard and allowed to make it a mini trial to a point, a lot of leeway imo the other side humored with as did the judge. She wasn't made a fool of but she could have been.
So I did watch it as I'm sure one can tell and that's my take on it.