Milberg Sued Over Kickback Claims

Theodore A. Bechtold, Esq.
Aug 5, 2007 4:39 PM CST

Beatie and Osborn appear to expect MIlberg Weiss to pay out money it actually paid out to other lawyers working on these cases.  They completely ignore the need for all lawyers that have received payments from these fraudulent settlements to return the money to their defrauded clients and other absent Class members.  This money is no less tainted than any retained by Milberg Weiss.  Every dollar of legal fees and expenses came from the general settlement funds which significantly reduced the recovery of the absent plaintiffs that were not provided kickbacks.  This does not even account for the impact on the overall settlement of the elimination of any plaintiff objection. 

The non Milberg Weiss lawyers involved really have only two possible answers to choose from.  One answer is for co counsel to admit that they knew Milberg Weiss paid illegal kickbacks to their plaintiffs and did nothing to stop the practice and protect their clients.  If this is the case they should be indicted, prosecuted and sent to jail right after Milberg Weiss and all partners demonstrated to be involved in the illegal acts.  The second answer is for co counsel to say they had no actual or constructive knowledge of Milberg Weiss plaintiff arrangements, illegal kickbacks and perjury.  They will say that they were deceived by Milberg Weiss and its partners.  Assuming argeundo that this is true one would expect such unknowing participants in Milberg Weiss fraud to be eager to return the dirty money to their clients and others they failed to protect from Milberg Weiss as a gesture of good faith.  What will the public think of attorneys that will fight to retain the proceeds of crime and cases that don’t even ask for them to do so?  It appears that only lawyers currently under indictment are expected to payback the dirty money.

Another even more difficult question is how many times can a smart experienced lawyer see the name Lazar, Vogel or Cooperman as a Milberg Weiss lead plaintiff before it becomes impossible to maintain plausible deniability of knowledge that there is something improper going on.  Co counsel needs to explain what they knew and when they knew it.  If they expect anyone to believe that they were completely unaware of these matters return of the legal fees taken under false pretenses is a good place to start.  The fact that the Beatie and Osborn complaint fails to include this enormous potential payoff for their clients indicate their rush to collect any fee regardless of client interest.  Perhaps one plaintiff for each case filed separately would address the procedural concerns raised in earlier posts as well as assuring plaintiff oversight.  This is clearly needed to deter counsel from failing to pursue all legally available recovery for their clients and absent Class members as we see in this complaint.