In recent years, many mafioso have gone on trial. The most famous or visible was John Gotti. His attorney was Bruce Cutler. In GF2, when Michael is at the Senate hearing, Tom Hagen is his attorney. I'm wondering if this was an unusual arrangement at the time; having a member of the "family" represent Michael at the hearings. Could Tom's involvement have been a liability? Could he himself be implicated in the family crimes? I also wonder if the real life mafioso - like Frank Costello - were represented by family member lawyers, or if any existed (like Tom Hagen).

Good question Mary Cas. Don't know if this has been discussed before or not.

Wasn't it unusual back in those days (or uncommon) that mafiosi had college degrees?? I would think Tom was an exception. However had it been real life, it seems it would be very suspect to have a family member defend you no?


TIS

for what?
he didnt do anything to get in trouble really.
he stayed out of the illegal stuff so there was nothing for him to be fingered for.

Although I'm not sure who the attorney was--I'm gonna say Bruce Cutler, but it could have been Barry Slotnick or Gerald Shargel--there was a fairly recent case in NYC--a RICO case, I believe, and again, I'm not sure who the defendant was---where the judge disqualified the attorney on the grounds that he was part of the criminal conspiracy. Or somehing like that; I'm a little hazy on the details.

I'm sure Turnbull will be able to supply more info.

Interesting thought! Surely the commitee must have know Tom's connection to the Family, but as already stated, Hagen insulated himself from the family business. He had his own "buffers"

I dont know what the relationship of real life lawyers was to their mob clients, but there was a lawyer that defended Philly mob figures, that eventually was convicted of mob activities.

I agree with Johnny that the committe probably knew of Tom Hagen's connection with the Corleone family, but Tom demonsotrated his efficiency as a lawyer rather than as a war time consligere. I'm sure the committe took the consideration of Tom being involved with the corleone family's illegal ventures.

I think I know where you're going with this, MC:
Remember that Michael said twice (near the end of GF and just before the Johnny Ola meeting in II) that Tom was just his lawyer and handled only "certain parts" of the family business. It was his attempt to keep Tom focused on the "legitimate" side of the family business. Therefore, who better than Tom to represent Michael as a "legitimate" guy wrongly accused by the Senate subcommittee?
Mafiosi have traditionally used "outside" lawyers to defend them--lawyers who were on retainer to them, not made guys or associates of their crime families who were connected with the day to day business of the mob. Those outside lawyers had other clients, which helped maintain their credibility when defending Mafia guys. For example, Roy Cohn, a powerhouse, politically connected NYC lawyer, defended Gotti when he was nailed for killing James McBratney for the kidnapping and murder of Carlo Gambino's nephew.
The case plawrence referred to was when a NYC judge disqualified Bruce Cutler, Gotti's long-time lawyer, because FBI surveillance tapes caught Cutler counseling Gotti on regular Mafia business, not just the case he was being tried for (the Castellano killing). The judge said Cutler was acting as "house counsel," which in legal terms meant that he he lied when he said he was simply representing Gotti as a client. Cutler could have made a stink about it, but then the Feds probably would have come back at him and indicted him as an accessory to some of the crimes they caught on tape. I think they were firing a shot across Cutler's bow.

Michael had said that Tom was the only one he could really trust and if we remember Sollozzo's line "...we know you're not in the muscle end of the Family...", so in the eyes of the authorities Tom was most probably fairly distant from the illegal goings on of the Family. Another point that occurred to me was that Michael was relaxed going into the Senate hearing as he didn't know about Pentangeli. His attitude may have been "They've got nothing on me, so no need for a big shot lawyer"

Thanks folks for the input. One of the things I wondered about was since the Corleones (Michael) got snagged by the Feds-how we are never told, other than Pentangeli-could those sources have also implicated Hagen. Tom was privvy to a lot of information and somewhere along the line someone other than Pentangeli may have stepped forward OR some other hard evidence; i.e. photos, notes, witnesses. I tend to think that Michael's arrogance (and "underestimation" [Turnbull])might have led him to use Tom and therein the potential for disaster if the trial every came to fruition.

Yes, Turnbull, while it is true that Mike told Tom he was "OUT", Hagen was still deeply involved with the family "business". Afterall he was fully knowledgeable of the Senator Geary frame up, and the murder of an innocent "civilian", and female at that!

I think we sometimes lose sight of Hagen's ruthlessness and treacherous nature, due to his intelligence and calm demeanor. Lets not forget hes just as evil as everyone else...

The chart of the Corleone Family exhibited at the Senate hearing showed Tom as "Consiglieri" [sic], with an FBI #. That # probably was a file #. He had no other numbers associated with his name--an indication that they had no direct evidence of his wrongdoing.

Lots of witnesses there. That's the kind of stuff I was referring to. Now, snapping back to movieland, it does make for better writing and filming to have Tom as Mike's courtroom lawyer. It fits better with the whole story. It would have been awkward to introduce a new character, Mike's lawyer.

I don't know about that. It would have been the perfect spot to introduce George Hamilton/BJ Harrison

I believe at this point Tom wasn't really Mike's consiglieri. If this is true, then who was Mike's consiglieri?

That's true, Johnny. It has often been noted here that the chart had wrong info--especially ranking Fredo as an underboss, over Neri and Rocco. I believe Mike was his own consigliere--always was.

Gee Turnbull, I never thought of that, but it makes sense. Afterall, if you think about it, many of Mikes decisions [deciding to whack McClusky and Sollozo, also sending Rocco to whack Roth],were second guessed and he didn't bother cosulting anyone...

I'm not really certain, since it's been a while since I've watched it, but:
I thought that in Part II, Michael tells Tom that he's "out" as consiglere, but he would stay on to look out for the family legal interests as they try to get "legitimate." Now I guess that there is always a possibility that Tom could implicate himself, but I feel that that aspect was supposed to be forgotten, and that we were meant to see Tom as an attorney only. Let me know what you think.

I got the impression that Mike wanted Tom to know as little as possible about the "family business", to sort of insulate Tom from any legal preceedings, in sort of the same way that Tom refused the letter from Kay to Mike. I don't think it was a matter of trust. As discussed here, it was just Mikes way of doing things, without a consiglieri.

Right! The first thing Michael "told" Tom immediately following the Tahoe shooting, after all the BS about how he was Mike's brother and the only one he could trust, was: "There's a lot I can't tell you about, Tom."

Speaking of Fredo, I wonder why Fredo wasn't subpoenaed by the Committee to testify. Someone as weak as Fredo could possibly made to say something damning, I'd think. Of course, Fredo could be advised by counsel to plead the 5th.

They didn't subpoena Rocco or Neri, either.
I think the subcommittee's strategy was to focus on Michael--make him relaxed so that he'd perjure himself. Subpoenaing everyone around him would put all of them in a siege mentality--they'd all take the Fifth, including Michael.

wel now, that didn't to well for the Committee, did it!!