Reputed mob lawyer Joseph Corozzo, Jr., reported to be considered by federal prosecutors to be a "house counsel" for the Gambino crime family, was disqualified from a federal criminal case by a Brooklyn federal judge for apparently arranging a meeting between a reputed crime figure and another man (identified by "sources" as Sebastian Saracino) who is expected to testify against his brother, Dino Saracino, whom Corozzo represents.
Let's get this straight: Corozzo represents a client who is facing criminal charges, and is alleged to have arranged a meeting involving a potential witness against his client.
What is wrong with this picture? Isn't this good investigative work -- trying to get "impeachment" evidence against a witness? Isn't this within the permissible bounds of what is called "zealous representation"? Or is the real problem that the lawyer's work is too good -- too effective -- and getting the lawyer bounced from the case is simply a strategic shot?
This might make an interesting case on appeal.