Crump is establishing that he is opposing counsel, for purposes of avoiding being deposed in the criminal case. I think filing the settlement agreement is unnecessary for that purpose, as his proffer that he is counsel for the Martins and he intends to sue Zimmerman is likely sufficient to establish him as "opposing counsel" in that sense.
Wouldn't a proffer from O'Mara that he does not intend to represent Zimmerman in any such civil suit trump that Crump proffer???
Heh. That's me. I use the same handle all over the 'tubes.
-- Wouldn't a proffer from O'Mara that he does not intend to represent Zimmerman in any such civil suit trump that Crump proffer? --
I think proffers and counter-proffers just make things messy. O'Mara's best argument is the one the court did not address, and that is the point that Crump waived privilege as to the surfacing of Witness 8. At rock bottom, although he dare not say it (yet), the foundation for deposing Crump is that her testimony is the product of being coached by Crump. I think there is another dynamic at play, and that is the discrediting and perhaps sanctioning of Crump, as a lawyer. What better way to tamp down public sentiment, than to cut off people who lie in order to inflame passions.
Anyway, even assuming that Crump is opposing counsel (put him in Bernardo or Corey's shoes, if you want), that still does not get him off the hook as far as giving fact testimony. Obviously, he's not the prosecutor, so the court doesn't have the ugly situation of opposing lawyers in the instant case deposing one another. But even if it did, what O'Mara is seeking is not "privileged" as work product or as legal strategy.