As noted earlier here, the indictment of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman is likely to put the firm out of business regardless of the outcome, although the firm is officially keeping a stiff upper lip and making a go of it.
Nevertheless, as the Arthur Andersen experience showed us, the odds of survival are long for a professional service firm under indictment. In that regard, Peter Lattman and Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog have been doing a good job of keeping up with partner and client defections from Milberg Weiss, the latest of which is the New York State Common Retirement Fund’s decision to seek replacement of Milberg Weiss as lead counsel in the Bayer AG class action litigation. This client defection comes on the heels of this Justin Scheck/The Recorder article that reports that several Milberg Weiss partners and associates have left the firm since the indictment, and that “competing class action plaintiffs firms say they’re being bombarded with phone calls and resumes of Milberg lawyers seeking jobs.”
Paragraph 83 of the indictment is probably the clincher in the decision of many lawyers and clients to bail out on Milberg Weiss:

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, each of defendants MILBERG WEISS, DAVID J. BERSHAD, STEVEN G. SCHULMAN, and SEYMOUR M. LAZAR convicted under Count One of this Indictment shall forfeit to the United States any and all property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, including the following:

a. with respect to MILBERG WEISS, the more than approximately $ 216.1 million in attorneysí fees obtained by MILBERG WEISS in the Lawsuits and litigation resolving the Lawsuits (the ìtainted attorneysí feesî).

A $216.1 million contingent forfeiture liability to the federal government has a way of inducing the search for greener pastures.