A solid endorsement

Harris%20County%20DA%27s%20office%20121508.jpgI’ve been enjoying the new local blog Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, which, along with Mark Bennett’s blog, provides an interesting daily glimpse of life around the Harris County criminal courthouse. Given the twists and turns of the recent Le Affaire Rosenthal, both blogs have had interesting observations about the players.
In this recent post, the HCCJC blog makes the following common sense endorsement that I hope all Harris County voters will embrace:

In the 176th [Criminal District Court] Judical Race, there is no issue in picking who I recommend.
The race is between Michele Saterelli Oncken and incumbent Brian Rains.
Judge Rains has been on the bench ever since I’ve been a lawyer. And ever since I’ve been a lawyer he has had the reputation of being one of the rudest and most unkind judges on the bench since . . . well, Pat Lykos.
He claims that Michele Oncken is running against him “because I made her husband mad.”
If only it was that simple, Judge Rains. The fact is that you’ve upset everybody.

Continue reading

Cooling heads over the Ashby high-rise

Ashby%20high%20rise%20021508.jpgSo, Mayor White has figured out that his ostentatious initial position and statements regarding the proposed Ashby high-rise project weren’t such a good idea, after all:

The city risks exposing itself to a “takings lawsuit” if it passes a new restrictive ordinance after the Ashby developers submit permit applications or site plans, Festa explained. The developer could argue that the city changed the rules after the fact, taking away value from their property.
White acknowledged that problem Wednesday.
“There are some legal doctrines that you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game, once somebody has filed certain things,” he said.

Well, better late than never that Mayor White has realized that it’s not a good idea to change the rules in the middle of the game on businesspeople who are risking millions of dollars in developing real estate.
As noted earlier here, the key issue with regard to the Ashby high-rise is not increased traffic generated by the project, which is nominal. Rather, the key issue is the scale of the project in relation to the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. That’s what should be the focus of the debate over the new ordinance. Clear Thinkers’ favorite Houston urban policy wonk — Tory Gattis — agrees.

The Southwest Airlines culture

Southwest_Airlines_logo-1.jpgWhile Continental Airlines continues its speculative merger dance with United Airlines, Southwest Airlines continues to be the most profitable company in the U.S. airline industry. This Jeff Bailey/NY Times article reports on the unique culture of Southwest that makes it an unlikely merger partner within the current round of consolidations in the airline industry. On the other hand, that special culture may also explain why Southwest is routinely the most profitable U.S. airline.

The DOJ loses another Enron criminal case

Kevin%20howard021208.jpgAs expected, the Fifth Circuit denied the government’s appeal yesterday of U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore’s decision to vacate the final count of the government’s odious five count conviction against former Enron Broadband CFO Kevin Howard. The Fifth Circuit’s decision affirmed Judge Gilmore’s decision to vacate the only remaining count of Howard’s conviction on which the prosecution had not already tossed in the towel. Ellen Podgor provides her usual excellent analysis of the decision.
With the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the stage is now set for the Department of Justice’s decision as to whether to try Howard for the third time on the same charges. One would hope that prosecutors would leave well enough alone, but don’t count on it. This is an Enron-related prosecution, after all.
Meanwhile, far from Houston in Hartford, the DOJ continues to assert essentially the same case against three former General Reinsurance executives and an AIG executive that has been thrown out against Howard and also the four former Merrill Lynch executives in the equally reprehensible Nigerian Barge case (see also here and here). The defendants represented their company in the negotiation of a legitimate business transaction that was evidenced by a written agreement that provides that all agreements or representations between the parties that are not contained in the written agreement are void and unenforceable. But that’s not what really happened, says the prosecution. The defendants entered into “secret side deals” that changed the risk allocation of the written agreement and eviscerated the company’s accounting treatment of the transaction. Pay a couple of witnesses to testify against the defendants by cutting favorable plea deals with them and “presto” — we’ve got a criminal case against some wealthy executives. Shattered lives, families and careers be damned.
This process is not one that a truly civil society would embrace.

The aftermath of the Clemens hearing

clemens%20at%20congress.jpgMany folks have been asking me about my thoughts on the Roger Clemens saga, but I am so disappointed with the abysmal level of discourse regarding the Mitchell Commission Report and the issues involved with the use of steroids and other PED’s in society that I find it hard to drum up much enthusiasm for addressing it. Compare the discussion of the issues from this earlier post with this live blog analysis of the questions and answers from Clemens hearing and you will see what I mean. Sort of makes you want to whipsaw the committee in the same manner as this Colman McCarthy/Washington Post op-ed, doesn’t it? Art DeVany expresses similar sentiments.
Although I expressed reservations early on about the unconventional way in which Clemens’ legal team has been defending the matter, I don’t think the hearing measurably increased Clemens’ risk of being charged criminally. In fact, in an odd way, the hearing may have actually mitigated that risk somewhat.
McNamee came across as such a manipulator that my sense is that it’s doubtful that prosecutors would base a criminal case against Clemens primarily on McNamee’s testimony. Thus, unless investigators come up with a conduit of the PED’s who is willing to testify that the PED’s were delivered to Clemens and McNamee, Clemens may avoid criminal charges. He is certainly not out of the woods yet, but the Congressional hearing probably hurt him more in the court of public opinion than it did with regard to a potential criminal case (Update: Peter Henning agrees with me).
Nevertheless, I’m not yet ready to bet on that prediction. At least without long odds in my favor.

The charming Bobby Knight

And Larry the Cable Guy’s crack on Coach Knight is pretty good, too.

Criminalizing Capitalism

handcuffs%20121308.gifIf I didn’t know better, I’d say that Nicole Gelinas has been reading (H/T Professor Bainbridge) my blog over the past several years:

[I]n the end, Sarbanes-Oxley has just made it easier for ambitious government attorneys to criminalize bad business judgment and complex accounting in hindsight. Further, in their focus on strengthening legal enforcement, the feds have passed up opportunities to create commonsense protections for investors. Worse still, the government has instilled investors with false confidence by implying that they can rely on prosecutors, not prudence, to protect their market holdings. Now the housing and mortgage meltdownówhich could hurt the economy far more than Enron didóis reminding investors that no law or regulation can protect them from economic disruption. [. . .]
As the economy heads into a possible downturn, calls will grow for someone to pay for the pain of another burst bubbleóand for yet more onerous rules, regulations, and prosecutions of businesses to prevent future crises. But no government mandate or punishment, however harsh, will stop companies and markets from being imperfect collections of fallible human beings. At the end of a decade of financial surprises, that may be the most enduring lesson of all.

As I noted here almost three years ago and have reiterated many times, the truth about Enron is that no massive conspiracy existed, that Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay were not intending to mislead anyone and that the company was simply a highly-leveraged, trust-based business with a relatively low credit rating and a booming commodities trading operation. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with such a business model, it turned out it to be the wrong one to survive amidst the perilous post-tech bubble, post-9/11 market conditions. Thus, when the markets were spooked by revelations of the embezzlement of several millions by Enron’s CFO and his relative few minions, the company failed.
However, Gelinas is spot on in observing that Enron’s failure was not a market failure. That Jeff Skilling failed to predict that Enron would fail is not a crime. Unlike his main accusers Andy Fastow and Ben Glisan, Skilling didn’t embezzle a dime from Enron. Did he tirelessly advocate on behalf of this innovative company? Sure, but since when is it a crime for a CEO to be optimistic — even overly-optimistic — about his company?
The primary justification for the absurdly-long sentence handed to Skilling is the plight of the innocent employees and investors who lost their nest eggs when Enron went bankrupt. But the main reason that those nest eggs ever had value in the first place was because Skilling had transformed Enron into the world’s leading energy risk management company through the creative use of futures and options contracts to hedge price risk for natural gas producers and industrial consumers.
Although nothing is wrong with compassion for folks who lose money on an investment, rarely is it mentioned in the Enron morality play that many of those investors who lost their nest egg when Enron failed were imprudent in their investment strategy. They should have diversified their Enron holdings or bought a put on their Enron shares that would have allowed them to enjoy the rise in Enron’s stock price while being protected by a floor in that share price if things did not go as planned. Even though virtually all of those innocent Enron investors carry insurance on their homes and cars, one can only speculate why they didn’t attempt to hedge the risk of their investment in Enron stock. Most likely, many of the investors simply did not understand how Enron’s risk management services created their wealth in the first place.
Beyond the shattered lives, families and careers, the real tragedy of the post-Enron demonization of business is that it has distracted us from examining the tougher issues of what really causes the demise of a company such as Enron and understanding how such a company can be structured to survive in even the worst market conditions. It’s easy to throw a good and decent man such as Jeff Skilling in prison for most of the rest of his life, throw away the keys and simply attribute Enron’s failure to him. It’s a lot harder to try and understand what really happened.

On the DeGeurin-DeGuerin brothers and Houston’s G-man

texas%20flag%20021208.jpgA couple of interesting stories have popped up over the past several days regarding Houston lawyers.
First, there was Mary Flood’s profile of the DeGuerin (or was that DeGeurin?) brothers, Mike and Dick, two of the best in Houston’s formidable criminal defense bar. The criminal defense bar in Houston has essentially branched out from two extraordinary criminal defense lawyers, the late Percy Foreman and Richard “Racehorse” Haynes. Mike and Dick are from the Foreman tree, while such excellent Houston criminal defense lawyers as Dan Cogdell and Jack Zimmermann stem from the Haynes tree. A good follow-up story for Flood would be to track the number of first-rate criminal defense lawyers in Houston who have been influenced by Foreman, Haynes and their many acolytes.
Meanwhile, not to be outdone, this ABA Journal article profiles Houston’s $1,100-per-hour lawyer, Stephen Susman. As noted earlier here, Susman has long contended that that he charges in excess of a grand per hour “to discourage anyone hiring me” on an hourly basis. As they say in legal circles, Susman prefers cases with a bit more meat on the bone.

The psychotherapist-patient privilege

Gabe%20Bryne.jpgGosh, as if Paul the psychotherapist, Gabe Byrne’s character in the new HBO series, In Treatment, didn’t have enough to worry about.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued this interesting opinion on the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the case of former Austin police officer, John Auster (H/T Robert Loblaw).
Auster suffers from paranoia, anger, and depression, so the stress of the impending termination of his workerís comp benefits was not exactly conducive to improvement of those conditions. Auster proceeded to tell two of his therapists that he was prepared to undertake a campaign of violence if his benefits were terminated. Inasmuch as the therapists had a duty under state law to report the threats, the U.S. Attorney’s office indicted Auster for extortion.
On a defense motion to suppress Auster’s threatening statements, the District Court threw out Austerís threats on the grounds that they were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege and not admissible at trial. The government appealed and the Fifth Circuit reversed, reasoning that Auster knew that his therapists had to report the threats and so he had no expectation that the threats would remain confidential. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit concluded that such threats are not privileged. As Loblaw points out, there is now a split among the circuit courts over the the psychotherapist-patient privilege, with the Fifth joining the Tenth Circuit in not recognizing the privilege, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuits recognize the privilege.

Lerach’s sentence

Lerach%20021208.jpgFormer plaintiff’s class action securities lawyer Bill Lerach was sentenced yesterday to two years in prison, fined $250,000 and ordered to complete 1,000 hours of community service (Peter Lattman’s W$J interview of Lerach is here and more W$J coverage of blawgosphere reaction is here). Lerach pled guilty last September to a felony count of conspiring to obstruct justice and to submit false testimony in federal judicial proceedings after being investigated by the Department of Justice for the better part of a decade.
My posts from over the years on Lerach and the investigation into his practice are here, and my latest posts summarizing my views on his plea deal are here and here. Along similar lines to the thoughts expressed in this post from yesterday, Larry Ribstein cautions those who take satisfaction in watching Lerach’s fall from the pinnacle of the plaintiff’s class action securities bar:

What many call their ìgreedî is what moves the marketís invisible hand and what has . . . generated so much public good for our financial markets. Both financial innovations and legal innovations may be taken too far, but this doesnít negate their positive aspects and the need to encourage them.
Thatís not an excuse for wrongdoing. If laws have been broken the violators should be sent away. But we should be aware that the excesses of prosecutors can cause at least as much, and possibly more, harm than the excesses of financial speculators.