Scuba Forum / General / February 2008
Another "honest" California Lawyer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Lee Bell - 21 Feb 2008 13:14 GMT I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, of all places, the New York Times. Perhaps there's hope for us after all. ___________________________________________________
Leading Class-Action Lawyer Is Sentenced to Two Years in Kickback Scheme
By MICHAEL PARRISH
LOS ANGELES - William S. Lerach, a former partner of the law firm now known as Milberg Weiss, was sentenced Monday to two years in prison and ordered to forfeit $7.75 million for concealing illegal payments to a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuits for which the firm became famous.
Mr. Lerach, 61, who pleaded guilty in October to a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice, appeared contrite before Judge John F. Walter of Federal District Court, and called his conduct "felony stupid" in brief comments before he was sentenced.
Mr. Lerach added that even at the time, "I knew what I did was wrong" but that he lacked the "strength of character" to not join with other lawyers in the scheme. Judge Walter said that he would have liked to sentence Mr. Lerach to a "substantially" longer prison term, but deferred to a plea agreement with prosecutors that was reached Sept. 18, which called for a maximum of two years. Had the case gone to trial, Mr. Lerach could have faced up to 50 years.
The judge said he was particularly concerned that Mr. Lerach and his paid plaintiffs had lied to judges.
"What Lerach and others did goes to the core" of the legal system, Judge Walter said, adding that Mr. Lerach, who accepted disbarment, would never again be able to do "what he was obviously so good at."
Mr. Lerach, of La Jolla, Calif., admitted to an arrangement in which his law firm made payments to people to be on call as plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits that were filed against publicly traded companies when their stock dropped in price.
Prosecutors for the United States attorney's office of the Central District of California, who worked on the case for seven years, say that Mr. Lerach and others lined up the plaintiffs ahead of time to gain an illegal advantage over other law firms engaged in the same suits. By being designated the lead plaintiff, the law firm stood to reap a larger share of any eventual lawyers' fees.
In his guilty plea, Mr. Lerach admitted to concealing from federal judges his secret payments to one such plaintiff, Dr. Steven G. Cooperman.
Prosecutors say that in more than 150 of the firm's class-action cases from the 1970s to 2005, the law firm earned more than $216 million in lawyers' fees, paying $11 million to these on-call plaintiffs. The bases for the lawsuits were never in question.
"Mr. Lerach has stepped up and accepted responsibility," Mr. Lerach's lawyer, John W. Keker, of Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco, told the court. An assistant United States attorney, Robert J. McGahan, prompted a testy exchange with the judge when he called the plea agreement a "reasonable compromise" and added: "In several respects, Mr. Lerach is a volunteer."
Judge Walter responded: "Mr. Lerach was certainly not a volunteer. He didn't come up and knock on the government's door."
"This whole conspiracy corrupted the law firm and it corrupted it in the most evil way," Judge Walter added.
Mr. McGahan conceded: "I agree that Mr. Lerach wasn't on his way to Damascus."
Much of the hearing, which lasted nearly two and a half hours, was devoted to arguments over which sentencing guidelines, if any, the judge should follow, or whether sentencing should be based on the plea agreement already reached.
A presentencing report from the United States Probation Office for the Central District recommended a prison term of 15 to 21 months. Prosecutors called for 24 months, citing a different set of sentencing guidelines.
Judge Walter also agreed to a request by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg L.P., on behalf of Bloomberg News, to release information from 23 letters of support for Mr. Lerach that the judge had sealed to protect "confidential medical information." All but the medical information will be released.
Describing Mr. Lerach as "an extremely hard-working attorney" who "cared about his colleagues and his family," Judge Walter said it was difficult "to reconcile the glowing letters with the seriousness of his conduct."
Mr. Lerach was also sentenced to two years of probation and 1,000 hours of community service and ordered to pay a $250,000 fine in addition to forfeiting the $7.75 million. He agreed not to appeal his sentencing, but declined to cooperate with the government on forthcoming prosecutions in the case. He is to report for prison on April 21. Judge Walter agreed to request that Mr. Lerach serve his sentence at a minimum-security federal prison at Lompoc, Calif. The remaining defendants are the law firm, Milberg Weiss; a former partner, Melvyn I. Weiss; and Paul T. Selzer, a Palm Springs, Calif., lawyer who is charged with laundering payments from the law firm to the on-call plaintiffs. That trial is set to begin on Aug. 12.
Mr. Lerach and Mr. Weiss dissolved their partnership in 2004, and Mr. Lerach opened his own practice in Southern California.
Scott - 21 Feb 2008 15:23 GMT > I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, of > all places, the New York Times. Perhaps there's hope for us after all. <el snipo>
I bet people also commonly referred to him as a "good lawyer".
He got a kiss on the cheek, you or I would be doing the 50.
Lee Bell - 21 Feb 2008 15:51 GMT >> I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, >> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He got a kiss on the cheek, you or I would be doing the 50. You and I are too honest to be a lawyer, much less a crooked one.
By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms.
Lee
Scott - 21 Feb 2008 16:12 GMT > >> I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, > >> of all places, the New York Times. Perhaps there's hope for us after all.
> > <el snipo>
> > I bet people also commonly referred to him as a "good lawyer".
> > He got a kiss on the cheek, you or I would be doing the 50.
> You and I are too honest to be a lawyer, much less a crooked one.
> By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms. And disbarred.
How absolutely perfect.
Now, if someone in prison would simply shank him, then he would be a good lawyer.
The world will be a much better place minus an LA liberal-faggot-lying-thieving lawyer.
It'd be a better place without a couple Arkansas liberal-faggot-lying-thieving lawyers as well...
Greg Mossman - 22 Feb 2008 00:49 GMT > > >> I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, > > >> of all places, the New York Times. Perhaps there's hope for us after [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It'd be a better place without a couple Arkansas > liberal-faggot-lying-thieving lawyers as well... And when you die, undoubtedly people will be lining up to stomp on your pauper's grave. Why is an unhappy pissant like you still alive anyhow, too pussy to pull the trigger?
pugetsounddiver@gmail.com - 22 Feb 2008 03:33 GMT > And when you die, undoubtedly people will be lining up to stomp on > your pauper's grave. Why is an unhappy pissant like you still alive > anyhow, too pussy to pull the trigger? I am not unhappy, you are; (and no one wonders why a whore is unhappy) just more of your ignorant projection.
Even if I was to commit suicide, it wouldn't be because my life is as miserable as you want it to be, nor as miserable as you would make it, if you had the ability and the balls.
I wouldn't do it with a gun.
You, the "lawyer", advocate breaking laws all the time, immigration laws, sell out your integrity and soul for a couple million dollars, lie, steal, exploit poor illegal immigrants, etc.
You are a slimy piece of sh.t, and if your balls ever drop, you look me up.
Other than that, carry on little girl.
Keep proving what a piece of sh.t you are.
Greg Mossman - 22 Feb 2008 04:03 GMT On Feb 21, 7:33 pm, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am not unhappy, you are; (and no one wonders why a whore is unhappy) > just more of your ignorant projection. Sure. That's why you're the one ranting and raving all the time, even contemplating your suicide:
> Even if I was to commit suicide, it wouldn't be because my life is as > miserable as you want it to be, nor as miserable as you would make it, > if you had the ability and the balls. See?
> I wouldn't do it with a gun. How are you going to do it? Inquiring minds want to know. Personally I think you should take a really really deep dive. I could respect that.
> You, the "lawyer", advocate breaking laws all the time, immigration > laws, sell out your integrity and soul for a couple million dollars, > lie, steal, exploit poor illegal immigrants, etc. Cite?
> You are a slimy piece of sh.t, and if your balls ever drop, you look > me up. Why, whatcha gonna do with my balls?
> Other than that, carry on little girl. > > Keep proving what a piece of sh.t you are. If anyone cares enough to throw a funeral for you, I promise to attend. I won't cry, but I won't stomp on your grave either. I may even bring you flowers. What kind do you like?
Greg Mossman - 22 Feb 2008 00:47 GMT > >> I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, > >> of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You and I are too honest to be a lawyer, much less a crooked one. Lawyers take oaths to uphold the law. Only idiots would think it a dishonest profession. It's too bad that there are plenty of poor example of dishonest lawyers, but it's not like there aren't examples of dishonest legal gun owners either.
> By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms. Which probably means about zip to him and most normal people. It's the jail time that's gonna suck. Otherwise, the article said his firm made $210 million in the past few years. I'd do a couple years in jail for $210 million in a heartbeat.
Chris Guynn - 22 Feb 2008 14:27 GMT <snip>
Which probably means about zip to him and most normal people. It's the jail time that's gonna suck. Otherwise, the article said his firm made $210 million in the past few years. I'd do a couple years in jail for $210 million in a heartbeat.
------------------------------------
Yeah, but he had to give his part back.
Chris Guynn - 22 Feb 2008 14:28 GMT > >> I'm amazed that this comes from California and that it was reported in, > >> of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms. I missed that part. I know that he called what he did "felony stupid", but I don't recall the article ever saying that he committed (or was found guilty of committing) a felony. Am I missing something?
Lee Bell - 22 Feb 2008 14:58 GMT >> By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms. > > I missed that part. I know that he called what he did "felony stupid", > but > I don't recall the article ever saying that he committed (or was found > guilty of committing) a felony. Am I missing something? The term felony is used in common law systems for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. This distinction is principally used in criminal law in the United States legal system, where the federal government generally considers a crime punishable by more than five days up to a year in jail to be a misdemeanor, while considering crimes punishable by greater than a year in prison to be felonies; crimes of five days or less in jail, or no jail at all, are considered infractions.
Lee
Chris Guynn - 22 Feb 2008 16:34 GMT > >> By the way, in the process, he's lost his right to keep and bear arms. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lee Thanks for that. I am now a little smarter (or, at least, more well informed) than I was this morning.
Just curious, and I would assume that it does, but does the California criminal system use the same basic guidelines for their distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies? Also, was this case a federal case (in which case, the previous question is pretty much irrelevant)? Also, since he lived in California to begin with, hadn't he more or less already lost his RKBA? :-)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to expand my knowledge.
Lee Bell - 23 Feb 2008 02:21 GMT >> The term felony is used in common law systems for very serious crimes, >> whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. This [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> felonies; crimes of five days or less in jail, or no jail at all, are >> considered infractions.
> Just curious, and I would assume that it does, but does the California > criminal system use the same basic guidelines for their distinctions > between > misdemeanors and felonies? I presume they do, but can not confirm. As I recall, the article said something about, a 50 year sentence if the lawyer had not cut a deal. I didn't go to the trouble to look it up again. Anyway, assuming that my memory is even close to correct, I think we may assume that crimes that would warrant that kind of punishment are a felony.l
> Also, was this case a federal case (in which case, the previous question > is pretty much irrelevant)? Also, since he lived in California to begin > with, hadn't he more > or less already lost his RKBA? :-) If the article mentioned the jurisdiction, I missed it. As for having lost his right anyway, it's hard to say. There are those allowed to carry in California, but it's treated as a priveledge rather than a right and restricted to those that have the influence to obtain a permit.
Lee
crownfield - 23 Feb 2008 18:04 GMT ->> The term felony is used in common law systems for very serious crimes, ->> whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. This ->> distinction is principally used in criminal law in the United States ->> legal ->> system, where the federal government generally considers a crime ->> punishable by more than five days up to a year in jail to be a ->> misdemeanor, while ->> considering crimes punishable by greater than a year in prison to be ->> felonies; crimes of five days or less in jail, or no jail at all, are ->> considered infractions. - -> Just curious, and I would assume that it does, but does the California -> criminal system use the same basic guidelines for their distinctions -> between -> misdemeanors and felonies? - -I presume they do, but can not confirm. As I recall, the article said -something about, a 50 year sentence if the lawyer had not cut a deal. I -didn't go to the trouble to look it up again. Anyway, assuming that my -memory is even close to correct, I think we may assume that crimes that -would warrant that kind of punishment are a felony.l - -> Also, was this case a federal case (in which case, the previous question -> is pretty much irrelevant)? Also, since he lived in California to begin -> with, hadn't he more -> or less already lost his RKBA? :-) - -If the article mentioned the jurisdiction, I missed it. As for having lost -his right anyway, it's hard to say. There are those allowed to carry in -California, but it's treated as a priveledge rather than a right and -restricted to those that have the influence to obtain a permit.
stories aboud about sherrif baca's task force to give big political donors and movie stars quick access to permits.
equal opportunity before the law. right.
- -Lee - - -
 Signature Bob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net
Scott - 23 Feb 2008 19:21 GMT > stories aboud about sherrif baca's task force > to give big political donors > and movie stars > quick access to permits. > > equal opportunity before the law. right. "It's not 'justice'; It's 'just us'." -- Anonymous Hells Angel
|
|
|