Once bonded to the PC, the trickster's acts *are* those of the PC, so anything done against the clan is seen as if the PC were doing it (through his agent, the bonded trickster).
Personally, I wouldn't bond the Trickster to the PC, that's like guest-friending a Broo. Instead, the PC should (must...) take care of the problem. It is up to him (and his stalwart buddies) to make the problem go away - if the trickster was particularly prized by the clan (now *that's* an oxymoron!) then they might want to remove the taint (that's the taint of chaos, not the touch of madness produced by the Trickster...). If not, then kill him (best) or drive him far, far away, like to an enemy clan...
In addition, he owes wergild to the Chief (I assume the trickster was a properly bonded one, so the crime was against his bonder, ie the chief). I'd set the wergild at the level of "A chieftain slain in his rites" (100 cows or outlawry or both, plus 10 cows to the gods and 2 for cleansing). While the trickster himself was probably no better than a stickpicker, his bond makes it an attack on the chief, and the egregious nature of he crime puts it in the "killing" rather than "wounding" level. If the PC takes care of the problem by removing the trickster (death or driving him away), then I'd still fine him for depriving the clan of an important member (albeit only important for rituals, otherwise despised and derided) at, say, the level of a "Killing a Thane". The best outcome for the PC would be to cure the Trickster, at which point I'd fine him a "stupid tax" for risking the Trickster ("Wounding a thane" level).
Of course, a true stickler would simply kill the PC for "consorting with the predark", but that's a bit strong even for me.
RR, a strict bastard when it comes to law...
Powered by hypermail