Attorneys seek to withdraw from former Drew Peterson attorney’s contempt case

Three attorneys for Joel Brodsky, a former attorney of convicted killer Drew Peterson, have motioned to withdraw from a case in which Brodsky is accused of violating a Will County judge’s gag order.

On Friday, Joe “The Shark” Lopez, one of three attorneys for Brodsky, said they are withdrawing from Brodsky’s indirect criminal contempt of court case because he wants to represent himself. Court records show that their motions to withdraw were filed earlier this week.

“Mr. Brodsky wants to go pro se, which is his right to do so,” Lopez said.

Pro se refers to litigants who decide to represent themselves in court instead of retaining the services of a lawyer.

Lopez said that he and the other attorneys, Adam Altman and Milan Filipovich, were not withdrawing because they were having issues with Brodsky.

“Mr. Brodsky is a very independent thinker. He wants to do it his way, and we respect him for that,” Lopez said.

Lopez said there was “no animosity.”

Brodsky did not immediately respond to a call Friday.

The attorneys’ motions to withdraw from the case are set for a hearing Sept. 23.

Lopez and Brodsky were part of the legal team that represented Peterson at his 2012 trial that resulted in his conviction of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

After Peterson’s 2021 petition to overturn his conviction, retired Will County Judge Ed Burmila issued a gag order for Brodsky after he participated in a WGN-TV interview in which he said he was considering revealing what Peterson told him about his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Stacy Peterson disappeared in 2007 and has never been found.

But after Brodsky participated in another interview with NewsNation earlier this year about Drew Peterson, he was accused of indirect criminal contempt of Burmila’s gag order.

In court filings, Special Prosecutor Bill Elward contends that Brodsky betrayed the duty he owes to Peterson and faces “potential lengthy incarceration in light of his blatant disregard for the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege.”