I appreciate your response and this is what I also countered with, though not as nicely cited:)

this is a good response

https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a...

Turns out its not black and white as people expect

- lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture.

> Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed

- while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though.

Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense.

Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant.

> Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.