Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Oksana's Former Lawyer -- Unmuzzled

11/23/2010 8:15 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

The one man who can blow the lid off the Mel Gibson/Oksana Grigorieva case may now be unmuzzled ... TMZ has learned.

Oksana Grigorieva Lawyer
Eric George -- the lawyer who represented Oksana in her mediation with Mel -- is now unchained because Oksana has waived the attorney-client privilege ... TMZ has learned.  It's significant because sources tell us ... Oksana's lawyers have gone to great lengths to keep George quiet.

Oksana submitted a signed declaration to Judge Scott Gordon on November 3, which reads in part, "I have waived attorney-client privilege repeatedly in this declaration."

Here are just some of the issues Sheriff's investigators in the extortion investigation could ask George:

-- How much was Oksana involved in the discussion about money during the mediation
-- Did Oksana try to leverage the tapes in order to secure the $15 million package
-- Why did Oksana say she secretly recorded Mel
-- Did Oksana understand the custody arrangement before she signed the mediation agreement
-- Did anyone ever threaten Oksana with prosecution or deportation if she didn't sign

And there are issues related to the domestic violence investigation as well:

-- Did Oksana ever show George a photo of her with a black eye (i.e., did Oksana Photoshop the picture that is circulating)
-- Did Oksana ever show George a photo of the baby with a bruise, or claim the baby had been injured during the January 6 argument
-- Did Oksana ever tell George that Mel threatened to kill himself, her and the baby
-- Did Oksana tell George who had copies of the tapes during the mediation, which could be a clue in determining who leaked the tapes.

Sources tell us Oksana's team is doing whatever it can to keep George quiet, but if Judge Gordon gives George the all clear to speak to authorities .... it could have a significant impact on the custody case and the investigations.


No Avatar


Why do I think this is the first step toward her suing George for legal malpractice. She'll claim he didn't tell her that talking about DV would get her more money, or some #)(*$ like that.

1397 days ago


It is quite odd isn't it. In the US can you limit waiving of attorney-client privilege , or is it an all or nothing thing? That is to say can one say "I will waive it for this piece of information, that bit of information but nothing else"?

Posted at 3:35 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by KikiOttawa

Kiki I'd like to know the answer to your question as well. I am inclined to imagine it is a request made specifically for a certain attorney-client relationship. That is to say if I have attorney X, Y and Z I would ask the judge to accept a waive from X at one point in time and it would be understood that Y and Z were not included.

I might be asking the Judge to review statements I made that would proof to be damaging to my attorney X. Attorney X would have a right to defend him or herself against my claims and therefore I would ask, while making the statements, that the judge waive any previous agreement of privilege made.

In short Kiki no, it's not a waive of all attorney client privacy privileges, instead it's a termination of that relationship forever.

1397 days ago


I think the Russian momma has her sickle out and thinks she is separating the wheat from the chaff.

1397 days ago

little aussie reader    

Hi little, how are you? :)

Posted at 3:51 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by kali

Excellent kali - it's my day off so I can sit here guilt free to some degree - I still have to get stuff done around the house though, so I'm popping in and out.


1397 days ago


Truth - Justice and the American Way !!!! Gonna cost ya bucks !!!!

1397 days ago


Both Scott Gordon and Daniel Horowitz are listed as alumni here. There is one connection for you

Posted at 3:42 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Annie

I think Harvey mentioned in one of the TMZ live show months ago that the judge and Horowitz are personal friends.

1397 days ago


Angelika, where are you? My city is apparently the 2nd coldest place in the world today with the South Pole being the first!! lol

1397 days ago


Is TMZ Mel Gibson's personal press agent now, running every story his defense feeds them? Why would TMZ dedicate their site to smear her? No wonder Mel’s defense doesn’t have to speak publicly – TMZ does it for them along with all the student bloggers Mel’s peeps have paid.

Posted at 3:54 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by marymac

I am NOT being paid by Mel to call a gold-gigging, hooking wh0re a gold-digging, hooking wh0re with her lying poink teddy on fire. However, if Mel team wants to pay me, I'm more than willing to provide my paypal account. Mel, you out there reding this? Holla!

1397 days ago


OH, Thanks Mike.

Are you Mike Mike, TMZ Mike?

Posted at 3:44 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Sam
Gee Mike, that answer was very much 'smoke screeny'....?

Posted at 3:52 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Sam


1397 days ago


JustSaying has 32 years of experience as an attorney in CA, so that's why I directed a post to them. I hope we hear back.

Posted at 3:44 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by fuddyduddy

I just thought of something. If OG's team subpoenaed EG does this mean he cannot, under any cir***stance talk to the press, family, friends or even the D.A. and Sherriff's office about ANYTHING? Does a subpoena mean you are a witness to a case so you cannot talk to anyone else or you can get a mistrial when it goes to court?

sorry, I'm dumb when it comes to legal proceedings.

1397 days ago


Is it possible that she needed to sign the declaration to allow her lawyers to subpoena him? Fud? Shyone?

Posted at 3:34 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Sam

When she makes "declarations" that suggest that her previous legal Representatives have acted in a manner that "make her seem guilty" she has the right to waive any agreed silence in statements against them.

Sam she is accusing her lawyer EG of breaking the law in her "declarations". This is what the tmz article is suggesting.

Posted at 3:40 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Mike
Mike--OG has already suggested a number of times that Eric George broke the law regarding mediation. Horowitz has suggested that, too.

Why would they subpeona Eric George to testify, but then try to shut him up? I'm confused on that.

1397 days ago


Little, I'm freezing :) And a little confused with this story :)

1397 days ago


"Oksana submitted a signed declaration to Judge Scott Gordon on November 3, which reads in part, "I have waived attorney-client privilege repeatedly in this declaration."

Why? Was it part of her "testimony" and done with the thinking that it would help her? In other words, by making it look like she has nothing to hide? Or being convinced she had nothing to hide? Or is this like trying to play both ends to the middle?

Posted at 3:55 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by tmzreader

I was asking myself those questions too, maybe she's throwing him under the bus. Bus is gigantic by now. She must have imported a quadruple bus from Devonshire to throw men under. Yet she still has a driver's license.

1397 days ago


Angelika, where are you? My city is apparently the 2nd coldest place in the world today with the South Pole being the first!! lol

Posted at 3:59 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by kali

Idaho, not to cold just a big storm

1397 days ago


She's in jail without anything he has to say, his statements would just be statistics in an already huge amount of evidence. She had decided to leverage authority over him by way of threats prior to the creation of the tapes. The tapes are an expression of a crime that was already in the process of being committed. She was holding his child away from him for many months under her terms.
The terms of child custody were already set by her before she made the tapes. It has been suggested that the tapes were the best thing that could ever happen to Mr. Gibson and that declaration may proof correct if it is determined that the tapes were made to increase stress on an already developed method of persuasion.

I know many of you hate me here but please examine what I have suggested.

Posted at 3:36 PM on Nov 23, 2010 by Mike

I have examined. I thought some time back that the tapes might actually be a beneficial thing in this situation, though I admit I was not thinking from exactly this point of view. My view at that time was actually more general in nature because I am not a lawyer, only a reader. What you say does seem to have much merit.

1397 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web