I’ve got a lengthy op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (sub-only) discussing the indictment of Milberg Weiss. A few excerpts:
Since such payoffs are baldly illegal, prosecutors claim the firm took elaborate steps to keep them concealed from judges and others. They say Milberg funneled much of the money through law-firm cut-outs and other channels, including casinos, and drew on a stash of money kept in a safe located in a credenza in partner David Bershad’s New York office, “to which access was strictly limited.” Again and again, prosecutors add, the firm submitted sworn statements on behalf of its clients denying any receipt of the sorts of payments they were in fact receiving. …
With other class members absent, named plaintiffs are one of the few watchdogs against self-dealing or misconduct by the lawyers — specifically, the pursuit of settlements that result in high legal fees, whether or not they serve the interest of the class. … if the Justice Department’s allegations are correct, Milberg was taking no chances on the watchdogs staying pacified: It threw regular chunks of raw liver into their cages. …
The two celebrity lawyers who made Milberg famous, Melvyn Weiss and the now-departed William Lerach, have thus far escaped indictment: Of course, if they were prosecuting such a case, they would miss no opportunity to insinuate that misconduct by part of a team of top executives must have been at least tolerated by the others, that the rot goes straight to the top, that senior partners turned a convenient blind eye to signs of misconduct because they profited handsomely from that misconduct, and so forth. Messrs. Weiss and Lerach must count themselves lucky that such reasoning did not lead to their inclusion as defendants.
The Journal also has an editorial today on the subject.
Our earlier coverage: May 20 and links from there, May 21, as well as many posts at Point of Law. When The Economist profiled Melvyn Weiss three years ago, I told them, “A distinguishing characteristic of the Milberg Weiss approach is that the clients became tokens to be moved around a game board” (Jan. 17, 2002).
3 Comments
How does this affect the ability of Milberg Weiss attorneys to appear as counsel for some party in litigation involving the United States? Are there conflict issues?
Walter, this may seem an obtuse question, but the attorney-client privilege is not the attorney’s to waive — it’s the client’s, so how does the DOJ get away with coercing a violation of the CPR?
wavemaker, I think they’re referring to a waiver of the privilege as between Milberg Weiss and the firm’s own counsel — i.e., the attorneys that represented it in the course of this investigation.