MILBERG WEISS INVESTIGATION: NO INDICTMENT OF NAME PARTNERS . . . The reporting about the Milberg Weiss investigation continues at Law.com, where Justin Scheck has this: "Lerach, Weiss May Not Face Indictments"--
[L]awyers familiar with the case say prosecutors were unable to get much beyond the accusations that came up in connection to [former Milberg clients Steven] Cooperman and [Seymour] Lazar that Milberg Weiss would pay referral fees to third-party lawyers who would then pass those payments on to the lead clients.
With Lazar refusing to cooperate with the government -- and Cooperman's testimony compromised by the fact that he offered it in exchange for reduced prison time -- prosecutors apparently were unable to build a case that Weiss and Lerach knew of such payments.
It looks like the predicted fizzle-out is coming to pass, which might disappoint the New York Times, which breathlessly reported last July that the investigation would reignite "heated debates about the tort system" and "influence how all plaintiffs' lawyers practice."
The New York Times report about the latest developments is titled "U.S. Case Against 2 Lawyers Appears to Falter."
Related posts:
- Milberg Weiss Investigation: Not Over Yet (2/9/06)
- Milberg Weiss Investigation Rolls On (10/3/05)
- The Wall Street Journal on Milberg Weiss (8/12/05)
- Built on a Shaky Foundation (7/20/05)
- Lawyer or Lawyer-Zombie? (7/1/05)
Wait... wait... listen closely...
If you really pay attention, you can hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth of at least one of the regular commenters.
Posted by: Mark | February 22, 2006 at 02:26 PM
I posted about it yesterday, and expressed skepticism about the case early, as well as linking to others who did. Sorry to disappoint your hopes of schadenfreude. Or maybe you're referring to the Vioxx plaintiffs' lawyers gnashing their teeth now that the whole NEJM pseudo-scandal has been exposed as much ado about nothing?
Posted by: Ted | February 22, 2006 at 07:56 PM
Ted, I'm unsure why you think I'm talking about you. That being said, my reading abilities must not be up to snuff. Where did you express skepticism in that post to which you link (to show purported "early" skepticism)? For an example of "early" skepticism, I suggest you read Evan's multiple posts on the subject. The tone of your posts, on the other hand, is "hopeful but cautious optimism."
Moreover, your latest post emphasizes that the Milberg Weiss firm is still in hot water... is that another example of your skepticism?
Posted by: Mark | February 23, 2006 at 07:55 AM
Well you see. . . uh. . . what I meant was. . . that maybe. . . is that the phone? I better get the phone. Talk to you later.
Posted by: Matt | February 23, 2006 at 10:28 AM
Okay, now I'm really confused: " Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Steven Schulman and David Bershad, partners in New York's Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, were told by prosecutors that they will be indicted within the next month on charges they participated in a scheme to pay kickbacks to clients, Schulman's lawyer said."
Posted by: Mike | February 23, 2006 at 01:47 PM
P.S. Hat tip: How Appealing.
Posted by: Mike | February 23, 2006 at 01:48 PM