Just when I was going out for a Frangelico, Monica Foster pulled me back in.
According to Foster, it was attorney Keith M. Davidson who contacted her when she put up the screen shots of his client Richard Nanula in a compromising position with Wicked Pictures contract girl Samantha Saint.
Foster was asked to remove the pix from her site and she refused until there was an official statement from Davidson’s office avowing that it wasn’t Nanula. Davidson hasn’t complied and the photos remain on www.pornnewstoday.com
Now here’s the good part. Davidson was Capri Anderson’s attorney when she went on national TV announcing she was filing a civil suit and criminal complaint against Charlie Sheen stemming from her paid [escort] dinner date with the star.
Anderson claimed Sheen licked her face, hurled a lamp at her and snorted a white powder during his hotel room meltdown. When Sheen went over the edge and Anderson locked herself in a bathroom, according to Anderson’s lawyer Davidson Sheen threw “himself into the door,” shouting “let me in, let me in, I’ll kill you, let me in”
My question is who secured Davidson’s services. You know it wasn’t Anderson who I believe was a Vivid contract girl at the time. Steve Hirsch? And, if so, does this make Davidson an attorney for hire by the porn industry? He’s now been involved in two “escort” situations that we know of.
In the GMA interview she did with Davidson, Anderson, whose real name is Christina Walsh, admitted she was paid $3500 for the night, but insists it was an “appearance” fee for dinner only and did not involve sex. She also says Sheen never paid her and after the incident offered her money to not talk about it.
Now for the coup de grace assuming we’re talking about the same Keith M. Davidson. From www.calbarjournal.com/April2011/AttorneyDiscipline/SuspensionsProbation.aspx
KEITH M. DAVIDSON [#212216], 39, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Aug. 21, 2010.
Davidson stipulated to four counts of misconduct in three matters. He admitted he failed to pursue a medical malpractice case by not appearing at a case management conference and a later hearing, and he took three months to file a motion to set aside a dismissal.
While analyzing a possible medical malpractice case, Davidson failed to inform his potential client about significant developments. He did not make clear that he was only considering the case, that the individual’s medical records were being evaluated by a nurse rather than a doctor, and although he told the man he would not accept his case, the individual continued to call Davidson without getting a response.
The man paid Davidson $750 to evaluate his medical records, but Davidson deposited the money in his general account rather than a client trust account. However, Davidson refunded the money.
In the third matter, he wrote a check against insufficient funds in his client trust account.
In mitigation, Davidson had no prior discipline record, cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he presented evidence of his good character.