Recent Law Grad Got $3M Bonus, Plus Porsche, in Fen-Phen Case

Happy Independence Day! Daily news updates resume on Monday.

Lawyer Pay

Recent Law Grad Got $3M Bonus, Plus Porsche, in Fen-Phen Case

Posted May 15, 2008, 01:12 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

A recent law grad working on a massive diet drug case got a $3 million bonus and a Porsche when the civil fen-phen litigation settled for $200 million in 2001.

David Helmers testified today about his lavish bonus in the Covington, Ky., federal fraud trial of three senior lawyers accused of stealing money from 440 clients in the underlying civil case, reports the Enquirer, a Cincinnati newspaper. Plaintiffs say they suffered heart problems as a result of taking the diet drug combination.

Shirley Cunningham Jr., William Gallion and Melbourne Mills were entitled to about $60 million in fees from the civil settlement, according to prosecutors, but are accused of having kept $45 million more. They also allegedly put another $20 million in a charitable trust, which each of the three was paid $5,000 monthly to manage.

A lawyer for at least one of the three is now accusing Helmers, 39, of having been the principal architect of an inappropriate funds transfer to legal counsel, according to the newspaper. However, Helmers, who says he was not granted immunity for his testimony, testified that he was merely a fledgling lawyer working on the case under the direction of his seniors.

Meanwhile, lawyers for two of the three defendants are pointing the finger of blame at a judge and another lawyer in the fen-phen class action, a second Enquirer article says.

Each of the three defendants could get up to 20 years in prison, and be ordered to pay millions of dollars in restitution, if he is found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Previous coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Plaintiffs Win Right to Lawyers’ Championship Horse"

ABAJournal.com: "Counsel: PI Lawyer’s Aide Was FBI Mole"

ABAJournal.com: "Shackled Fen-Phen Lawyers Seek Release, Judge Says No"

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by associate - 1 month, 3 weeks, 5 hours, 21 minutes ago

I hope this means that the Shirley Cunningham Jr. and Melbourne Mills Law Offices ads will end at least temporarily, but somehow I think they’ll continue to assault the senses of any television viewer in the KY/OH/IN area.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 44 minutes ago

Do we really need a “Somebody’s Making More Money Than You” headline in EVERY issue? Yeah, granted, these tend to generate a lot of comments (so free market, supply-and-demand, etc). However, there are lots of things that would generate eyeballs and comments (Britney Spears mental health coverage!)… that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily worthwhile.

I get it, I get it… the guy down the hall from me has a larger salary and got a bigger bonus. I hate him, it’s not fair… wah. Next?
Posted by Anthony McManus - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 13 hours, 4 minutes ago

the lawyers involved in the case and the commentators still don’t get it.....
it’s not about “me” amd “him” and making money. It’s about the integrity of the profession, and abusing the system, and the public’s perception of lawyers
Posted by jmc - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 52 minutes ago

i thought that the defense of “just following orders” went out of favor after the ww2 war crime trials. even a “recent grad” should be able to figure out that a $3mm bonus and a porsche is a hint that something is wrong. if it ain’t right, don’t do it. if you have a question, it ain’t right!
Posted by Phil Walker - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 50 minutes ago

Here is exactly what I don’t like about the so called journalism of the ABA Journal. According to the “article” above, Helmers was a “recent law grad” when working on the case in 2001. Using Martin Dale and Lawyers.com, Helmers graduated law school and started practicing in 1997 – a fact I found out in about 30 seconds of research. I am not saying four years is a huge amount of experience that necessarily warrants the 3 million dollar bonus, but I would hope the ABA Journal would at least check its facts. Even thought the link to the Enquirer shows the Enquirer, an apropos name I might add, has the same wrong facts, it does not mean the ABA Journal should reprint it. Anthony M has a great point, it about perception and it seems that the ABA Journal is only interested in sensationalism and tries every way it can to promote the perception that all attorneys are either overpaid or crooked. Li Yuan please re-read the post by Steve Perkins. I believe he had just a hint of sarcasm in his post.
Posted by GC - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 25 minutes ago

No. 3: Do you write as eloquently as you post ?? If so, I would enjoy reading your briefs to a court.
Well, Well, Well. Some “bottom-dwelling scumsuckers” got greedy. What a shock! Hope they all rot in prison.
These nonsensical class action suits are wrecking the American economy. Everything from “my coffee was too hot” to “ I had a heart attack(when I already had advanced cardicac disease) after taking a pill.”
As is said: “Only in America” with its Millions of lawyers looking to “make money like lawyer”, as No. 3 said.
Posted by Bill - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 53 minutes ago

Is “Li Yuan” Mandarin for “Mike Hunt”?
Posted by LawDrone - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 10 hours, 11 minutes ago

He should have held out for a Ferrari.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

In response to #4, it’s not an “integrity” issue per se to make a lot of money. Societal norms dictate that be discreet about salary, because humans are envious creatures by nature. However, the fact that “flashiness” causes envy problems does not impute one’s integrity for being wealthy. As long as one’s pay is negotiated on the open market, without fraud or duress, then it’s not a poor reflection on someone that others are willing to pay handsomely for his or her services.

(Of course, is THIS case, it appears that fraud WAS a factor… so in that context, this story does deal with integrity. However, the discussion in the comments is largely dealing with the profession’s integrity image based on high pay in general.)

The real problem with the legal profession’s integrity image comes from our competitiveness and jealousy. In almost every issue of this publication, for instance, there is an article about how much some lawyer somewhere is getting paid. Often times, the amount alone IS the story… nothing more. “Lawyer Pay” even has its own category here for archival purposes. The ABA Journal does this, no doubt, because it is one of the most popular topics for people to read and comment on. Each one of these articles are generally trailed by a long string of reader comments… dealing with how evil partners are, how evil law school rankings are, etc.

If I’m Joe Sixpack (making $30-40K a year), reading an article about a businessman or lawyer making five times my salary… I’m jealous, but don’t automatically assume that person has morality issues. However, when I then read a few dozen comments from other people, complaining that they “only” make three or four times my salary rather than five… then I have to ask myself, “What is wrong with these people?” The real integrity problem in the legal profession is not making a lot of money, but perpetually being unsatisfied over the fact that someone else makes a little more.
Posted by Alan Sacks - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

ABA Journal should cease publication and simply have one or two pages set aside in PEOPLE magazine.
Posted by PS - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes ago

Leave Li Yuan alone!! I enjoy reading her posts - they are the only ones with a sense of humor. You all take yourselves too seriously - and that’s what’s wrong with this profession.
Posted by Adam - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 44 minutes ago

Posts by “Li Yuan” do not strike me as funny, but merely infantile, narrow minded, and uneducated. Perhaps they are funny if viewed through a communist lens…
Posted by Linda Richmond - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 41 minutes ago

I see that Li Yuan’s posts are disappearing. So much for freedom of speech.
Posted by 2L - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 40 minutes ago

You all do realize that Li Yuan isn’t a real person, right? It’s someone trying to be funny under a pen name...i’ve been following the work for weeks. The original posts had a different spelling of the name.
Posted by Semour Butz - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 5 minutes ago

Looks like Bill from Post #7 is the only person on this forum with a decent sense of humor.
Posted by JR - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 20 hours, 38 minutes ago

S.C. was at the heart of the ouster of a law school dean in Central Florida...Mr. C. somehow donated money...then retained employment ....presumabley paid via the donated funds.....unfortunately he never showed up for work....greed is a terrible thing.....
Posted by jmc - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 1 minute ago

steve—[#9}— i agree, in general, that it is not an integrity issue “per se” to make a lot of money. however the rules of professional conduct [in my state] provide that an attorney shall not collect a “clearly excessive fee.” the same rule also defines the factors to be considered in determining a “reasonable fee.” the aba article implied that a recent grad made $3mm and a porsche as a bonus for his services in one case. i suggest that someone with the smarts to make it thru law school and pass the bar ought to have a “suspicion” that something was amiss. the article is not about lawyer pay or envy or making money. it’s about a lawyer who participated in a blatent fraud and was rewarded for his efforts with a bonus that screamed “ethical violation.” didn’t some justsice talk about the conclusions that can be drawn from finding a trout in the breakfast cereal? this recent grad’s bonus was even more obvious.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Lawyer Pay