Big time CEOs use Biglaw to defend them because, well, they’re Biglaw and that makes them better then, say, real criminal defense lawyers, right?
Well just ask former Brocade CEO Gregory Reyes, per this Law.com post courtesy of Andrew Bluestone at New York Attorney Malpractice Blog. Reyes was sentenced by Judge Charles Breyer to an additional 6 months because of an affidavit in support of severance submitted during the case.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sentenced the former Silicon Valley icon to 21 months in prison Wednesday. Breyer also imposed a $15 million fine, but did not order Reyes to pay any restitution. Breyer stayed the entire sentence pending appeal.
Breyer indicated, however, he would have imposed a shorter, 15-month sentence had Reyes not submitted a sworn affidavit to the court saying he did not backdate.
Lest you think the Skadden hourly fee paid for partner Richard Marmaro, not to mention the 37 associates who “assisted” in the preparation of the papers (I’m just making this up here for purpose of exaggerating my point) was high enough, the additional 6 months is a hefty price for careless lawyering.
To be fair, Marmaro proved to be a stand-up lawyer, when the judge came down like a ton of bricks on his client’s head.
Reyes’ attorney, Richard Marmaro, attempted to take the flak for the declaration, telling Breyer he had been the “proponent” of it . . . The language in the declaration was a product of “poor drafting by the lawyers” and was not meant to apply to all of the disputed Brocade stock option grants, said Marmaro, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Still, one has to wonder how it is possible that Skadden Arps managed to screw up something that any federal defender would know better than to do? Was the billion dollar legal fee insufficient to get all those Tier 1 law grads to stop thinking about their Ferrari orders and focus on their client’s case?And just to add another thought to the mix, bear in mind that this was yet another plea. Has anybody who pretends to do criminal defense at these big law firms ever heard of a trial? It has been pointed out that this was wrong, and that Reyes was convicted after a jury trial. The exception (particularly given the result) does not, of course, change the rule.
Now to my point: To all you very important, big time corporate white collar defendants. If you were so smart and important, wouldn’t you learn a lesson from watching CEO after CEO go to prison despite their ridiculously expensive and shockingly ineffective defense? Is it just this mindless love of corporate culture, where bigger is better instead of better is better?
Since my dear white collar defendants really never seem to grasp the obvious, I’m going to restate this point more clearly. You are a defendant in a criminal prosecution, no matter how “important” and different you want to believe you are. When you get to the FCI, they don’t let you wear ties and carry cellphones. They don’t call you “sir”. You get a number just like everyone else.
So retain an attorney who is competent to defend you, rather than an attorney who is guaranteed to plead you out hours after your personal well runs dry. And no, you do not need a 1000 lawyer firm with “resources”. You need skill and competency, not secret connections. I understand this is a novel concept, but it’s your life.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Holy crap. That’s not just six months; that’s a 40% longer sentence!
And yet, I’m sure the next white collar defendant who calls me will whine about how he would really like to retain me, but he really needs a big firm with “resources”.
I am sick to death of hearing about this. Maybe a better way to look at it is instead of Reyes getting an extra 40% sentence because of Skadden, he got it because he was too pompous and self-important to retain a real lawyer and brought it on himself.
Addendum: A little bit of love from Forbes to Skadden (and in case you’re wondering, yes, this applies to all of Biglaw):
So, dear white collar defendants, if that’s what you want to spend your $5,000,000 legal fee on, then you get the lawyer you deserve.
Biglaw Poised To Make A Killing on Subprimes
You may recall that I
Biglaw Poised To Make A Killing on Subprimes
You may recall that I
Biglaw Poised To Make A Killing on Subprimes
You may recall that I
The leading Texas case on criminal defense lawyers’ professional liability arose when a white-collar defendant hired Biglaw.
Bad for the defendant, good for my E&O rates.
Good to hear it wasn’t a total waste.
Yeah. The defendant took a felony conviction she didn’t have to, but it was worth it to me.
You said:
” … bear in mind that this was yet another plea. Has anybody who pretends to do criminal defense at these big law firms ever heard of a trial?”
If you’d actually read up on the case, you’d have realized that this was a sentencing following a trial.
How’s that competency thing going for you? With this kind of attention to detail, you must be an awesome “real criminal defense lawyer.”
How’s that competency thing? Well, dude, let’s distinguish between posting based on a story and representing a client. Since my clients tend get less time as a result of my representation, I tend to thing it’s going really well.
I wonder if Reyes would rather have a lawyer who didn’t sink him for an extra 6 months after losing the trial. That’s what us “awsome real criminal defense lawyers” do. Save some of that angst for the clients, and worry less about why others don’t spend more time reading up on other people’s losses. Maybe then they won’t go to jail for an extra 6 months.
Nice dodge, buddy.
I called you on a significant factual error in your post — an error which suggested you weren’t particularly well informed about the case and which cast doubt on the validity of your entire post. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnis. You know the drill.
You dodge the criticism by suggesting that Marmaro’s error was more serious than yours. A perfectly legitimate point, but an inapposite response to my post. You put an opinion out there, you got a crucial fact wrong, and it made you look sloppy. That’s the point.
You might actually “spend more time reading up” on a case before you take a swing at another attorney in such a public forum — an attorney who, by the way, has won his share of immense cases and was at one point on the verge of convincing the judge to Rule 29 entire case against Reyes.
Your sloppiness with the facts here — in a place where the entire world can see your mistakes — suggests you might be sloppy elsewhere. It’s a fair inference. And you opened yourself up to it.
If you want to blog, get your facts right, or, when you don’t get them right and someone calls you on it, take it like a man. At least Marmaro owned up to his mistake.
Oh shucks, dude. Looks like you missed a little something, since I changed the post to correct the fact, tangential though it was. I guess you missed that part when you were feeling so smart. Now what were you saying? That’s right, it doesn’t really matter, because the defendant still got screwed because of Skaddens incompetence. Any argument about that? I didn’t think so.
And that, little dude, was the point of the post. If you want to nail someone, you have to do it on something material. I’m under no duty to do background research on articles that are used for a post, no matter whether you think it should be required or not. “If you want to blog, get your facts right.” And if you want to be a criminal defense lawyer, don’t give your clients affidavits to submit that will buy them an obstruction of justice enhancement.
By the way, I love the part where he was “on the verge of convincing the jury to Rule 29 entire case.” (Don’t worry, we’re not little nitpickers here who are going to make a big deal because you leave your articles out of your sentences.) You know what you call a defendant when the judge almost Rule 29s the case? Convicted. Get it?
And by the way dude, if you want to be taken seriously, then don’t be an anonymous coward. Dude.
I have tried a bunch of federal cases, and in most every one the judge acted like she was seriously considering granting a Rule 29. I think it’s just a game federal judges play.
Practical Blawgosphere: The Art of Really Listening
Susan Cartier Liebel
Practical Blawgosphere: The Art of Really Listening
Susan Cartier Liebel