When its California operation split off in 2004, Milberg Weiss leaders had a choice: Break up their partnership and form a new firm, or continue as the same entity. A probe of the firm and its leaders seemed to focus on departing California partner William Lerach, and dissolving was expensive. So the New York firm's executive committee decided to keep the partnership intact, banking they'd be out of the investigation's shadow once the split was done. They made the wrong choice, and not for the last time.
October 18, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
When its California operation split off in 2004, the leaders of Milberg Weiss had a choice: Break up their partnership and form a new firm, or continue as the same entity.
Dissolving would have triggered massive capital payouts to former partners, but almost certainly would have saved the new firm from liability for wrongdoing committed prior to the breakup. The firm and its top partners, at the time, had been under criminal investigation for five years.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
