ABA continues to protect its turf

Today, the American Bar Association adopted new "model" approach to attorney regulation.

Missing in the approach is compliance with federal antitrust laws and allowing consumers of legal services a say in how their interests are allegedly protected by attorney regulation.

The "new" approach did not change the ABA's position on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) - criminalizing conduct that the law does not define.

Oh well.  To expect logic, fairness and compliance with the law from the "legal" elite...

One thing that stands out though - while retaining its previous position on UPL, the ABA made an astonishing move by expressing possible acceptance of including non-lawyers into provision of legal services.

Provision of legal services by non-lawyers is not such a radical idea.

First, consumers must have their own choice to say "no" to any occupational regulation and to choose providers as they see fit, without paternalistic protection from the state.  I wrote about it on this blog earlier.

Second, FEDERAL constitutional "right to counsel" does not presuppose right to counsel LICENSED (authorized) to give advice by state government - and that is especially try when that same state government is being sued by the consumer of legal services.

A good example was when the State of New York suspended my law license when I was suing the State of New York, right before my deadline to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the State of New York.  I don't think that any consumer of legal services in his/her right mind will give SUCH control to your opponent over your own attorney's law license.  And I do not think that that particular legal consumer who would be stripped of an attorney by the defendant-government will accept that it was done for his own protection (which is what attorney licensing is declared to be for).

But, back to ABA's new resolution.

Here it is, announced on Twitter:

Here it is, in full glory:

 So, ABA "urges that each state's highest court, and those of each territory and tribe, be guided by the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services when they assess the court's existing regulatory framework and any other regulations they may choose to develop concerning non-traditional legal service providers".

One thing is - this "urging" directed at COURTS is completely illegal.

It is not the courts, but the state legislatures that enact unauthorized practice of law CRIMINAL statutes, and it is not within the courts' power to change that - as an attorneys' association, ABA must realize that.

Provision of legal services by "non-traditional legal service providers" is the same as provision of legal services by non-attorneys which is UPL.

That requires change of UPL statutes - by state legislatures.

But, the "Resolution" is not directed at state legislatures, and ABA also indicated, in the same "Resolution", that it does not change its position against non-lawyer ownership of legal firms - something that may infuse new life into the legal profession and encourage innovation and diversity of services, wider availability of services to underserved populations and drops in prices for legal services which recently reached - for at least some corporations - the mark of $1,500 per hour.

Even in this castrated version, the "Resolution 105" met with vigorous resistance from some state bars.

And you know which state bars were fighting against inclusion of non-lawyers into provision of legal services?

The two states that were recently prominent in the news in demonstrating how lousily they regulate their attorneys:

Texas waited 10 years after reversal of a wrongful criminal conviction to disbar a state prosecutor who, through his misconduct, obtained a criminal conviction and sent an innocent person to death row.

The other one is New York - the state where:

1) two attorneys, leaders of both the State Senate and the State Assembly, were recently convicted for felonies - that is Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, but who proudly continue to be licensed attorneys (even though in New York disbarment on conviction for a felony is automatic) and collect $100,000 state pension:

2) several prominent Manhattan attorneys - including a recent president of the same American Bar Association - gave money-laundering advice to an undercover investigator in an international corruption sting;

3) where the number of wrongful convictions is staggering, but where, instead of addressing the problem, the state District Attorney association is lobbying the Senate to prevent introduction of a bill that will create a separate Commission for prosecutorial misconduct, because the current attorney disciplinary committees refuse to prosecute prosecutors involved in misconduct and in obtaining wrongful convictions;

4) where a prosecutor, Westchester County DA Janet DiFiore, who was involved in massive misconduct and likely criminal activity on a large scale, over several years, was just confirmed and sworn-in as the Chief Judge of the State Court System; and where

5) another prosecutor, Thomas Scopa, Suffolk County DA, a prosecutor "famous" for having criminal charges filed against Philippine nurses and their attorney tossed by the 2nd Department because they violated prohibition on SLAVERY (think about that, a prosecutor who was trying to coerce 13 temporary female immigrants into slavery in year 2009, in the 21st century!!!) and the attorney's 1st and 14th Amendment right to give advice to his clients within the boundaries of the law - that famous guy's office is now investigated by the feds for his role in a potential cover-up of misconduct of his former longtime friend and investigator in an assault on a person involved in alleged theft of - prepare yourself - reportedly a duffel bag full of DVD porn and sex toys.

Suffolk DA's office is subpoenaed for its potential role in using court-authorized wiretap to conduct surveillance of conversations that had nothing to do with the purpose of the wiretap, and exposed misconduct of the DVD and sex toys' owner, the Suffolk County Police Chief. 

And, what did Thomas Scopa did in reply?

Blamed the press for doing investigative reporting of potential misconduct.

That's a classic knee-jerk response of a caught public official that was also just demonstrated by Rudy Guliani in his attacks on Beyonce - blame the messenger, not the perpetrator.

That is the state of New York where attorneys overpower all branches of the government, where they claim on record that they "run the country", make and enforce laws in their favor.

That is the state where only attorneys are allowed to "screen" judicial candidates, pick and endorse judges - and testify to the Judiciary Committee before the Senate (the Committee also headed by an attorney, a complete conflict of interest).

This is the state where bar associations pay for experts to testify in favor of judicial pay raises for their license regulators, as the New York Bar association did to give its regulators a gift of several tens of thousands of dollars per year, at the expense of taxpayers.

This is the state where regulation of attorneys clearly and defiantly violates clearly established federal antitrust civil and criminal law and is operated as a criminal cartel where the "regulation" is done by super-majorities of attorneys weeding out competition and critics of misconduct, and where no voice is given to consumers in how they are "protected" by such regulation.

And this is the state where the President of the bar association recently lamented about customers' preference to buy legal information separately and legal services - maybe, and claimed that legal services should be bundled with legal information (thus insisting on monopoly of information about the law, which is a matter of public record).

In all this scheme of things and "urging" and "advising" and "resistance", there is no indication - NONE WHATSOEVER - that the American Bar Association or any participating state bar associations - even tried to poll opinions of consumers of their services, and not multi-million dollar corporations, but average Americans.

Nobody from ABA apparently tried to ask the consumers:

1) whether they are happy with legal services being regulated by the government;

2) whether they would prefer to choose their legal providers themselves and to have the legal profession deregulated - especially because discipline targets attorneys who sue the government and represent the most under-served classes of legal consumers, criminal defendants and civil rights plaintiffs; 

3) whether they would prefer to have an option to choose a provider of legal services who would not be licensed, a trusted friend who knows the law;  and

4) whether, if they would prefer to keep the legal profession regulated - for their benefit, as is the declared purpose of attorney licensing (not protecting the markets of legal servics from competition) - they would also prefer to have super-majorities of non-lawyers, consumers of legal services, on regulating panels, so that consumers can decide themselves how to regulate the legal profession for their own benefit.

There was not a peep about asking legal consumers as to what they want.

And this omission speaks louder than any assurances that ABA wants attorney regulation to continue ostensibly for the benefit of consumers of legal services.

The greedy ears are sticking out of the hat.  

And those ears stink.

West Virginia meets New York - retaliation against attorneys for making motions to recuse continues

In February 11, 2015 it was reported that a judge of Supreme Court of the State of West Virginia Robin Davis not only refused to recuse from a case where the opposing counsel bought a jet plane from the judge's husband for 1 million dollars, but turned the attorney who made the motion to recuse in for a disciplinary violation, and that's not the only appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest of that judge, as revealed by investigation by journalists, as reported here.

Judge Davis did not disclose the conflict of interest, and ducked journlists' attempts to get her to reveal her position on the matter.  Then, she made a statement that there was nothing improper and no conflict of interest, and no need to disclose the plane sale.

And, of course, the judge decided for the side whose attorney bought the plane from  her husband, decided with a big-time multi-million recovery.

But, in West Virginia, at least a mainstream media investigation was conducted - and aired.

In New York, journalists have their heads in the sand whenever issues of judicial misconduct are raised - unless, of course, a judge is convicted of a crime, which happens very rarely, if at all.

In New York, I was suspended from the practice of law on November 13, 2015, exclusively for sanctions imposed by Delaware County (now retired) judge Carl F. Becker for making motions to recuse him based on established misconduct.

As to West Virginia, some legal ethics professor have a problem as to appropriateness of the judge's obvious retaliation against the attorney who made the motion.

As to New York, journalists are simply afraid to investigate judicial misconduct.

My numerous requests to journalists for similar investigations of judicial misconduct of Judge Becker (who quickly "retired" from the bench before the end of his term, obviously to avoid being booted for misconduct) were stonewalled or ignored, since 2011.

Finally, in 2014, I went public with my own blog and told my own story of judicial misconduct myself.

That led to criminal charges to be brought against me for going public with statements of about prosecutorial and judicial misconduct (charges were dismissed, but not before they were used to oust me out of the State of New York).

When I share this information with people who do not yet know my story, they do not believe this is happening in America.

Yet, it is happening.

In West Virginia, while the underlying civil case settled out of court, as of July 2015, the disciplinary case against attorney Mark A. Robinson still continued, that was the disciplinary case initiated by Judge Robin Davis in retaliation for his motion to recuse that revealed and made public the purchase of the jet plane by the opposing counsel from her husband during the pendency of proceedings.

I found no further information so far that the case was dismissed, so it still continues.

I wonder when states will start disciplining judges for abusing their power and engaging in retaliation against attorneys for making motions to recuse, which one of New York Appellate courts recognized to be an attorney's 1st and 14th Amendment right to do.

I will post a separate blog about that case, decided in 2009 in New York, stay tuned.

It takes the Texas bar 10 years to disbar a prosecutor involved in sending an innocent person to a death row based on prosecutor's withholding of evidence

The Texas Bar finally "did the right thing" and disbarred the prosecutor involved in withholding of evidence from a criminal defendant that led to wrongful conviction of the defendant, a death sentence, and spending 12 years on death row.

Yet, it is a bittersweet victory.

First, the defendant is alive only because of the slow appeals process for death row inmates.

Had the process been as fast as the public wants it to be, he'd be dead by now - just look on Facebook at comments posted to announcements that a person is even CHARGED with a crime (and presumed innocent still) - just kill him and save taxpayers the money for procedures and appeals, says the public.

Second, with the conviction reversed in 2006 based on prosecutor's misconduct, WHY did it take the Texas bar 10 whopping years to disbar the prosecutor.

WHY did the Texas bar allow the prosecutor to jeopardize constitutional rights, including LIVES of other criminal defendants for 10 more years?

Andrew Cuomo's tweets about himself, his father, the NYS Court of Appeals and Janet DiFiore - when bliss grows into delirium

At this time, I am analyzing the contents of the swearing-in hearing for New York Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.

It is a lot of work, and it will take me some time - especially that there is a lot of interesting material available in that one hearing.

Meanwhile, I would like to present to my readers some "tweets" of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (Janet DiFiore's friend and likely partner in crime - real crime), as I discussed earlier on this blog, the crime of corruption and cover-up of that corruption by Janet DiFiore, and reimbursement of Janet DiFiore by Andrew Cuomo by giving her husband a position on casino siting board, and by giving to DiFiore the job of the State's Chief Judge.

Here is the picture of Andrew Cuomo from his Twitter account.  It is a public record.  Andrew Cuomo is obviously presenting himself to the public as some kind of a "people person".

That is, while catering to the big gaming business and having DiFiore help him hide his financial connections to that industry.

Cuomo twitted several times yesterday that he was going to attend and deliver a speech at the swearing-in ceremony of DiFiore.

Then, Cuomo made some twits indicating that "Janet" is apparently a champion in PREVENTING and REVERSING wrongful convictions, even though there is evidence (that the NYS Senate refused to consider) that Janet DiFiore is behind CREATING those wrongful convictions.  Here is the happy "champion", sitting right next to her benefactor.

Cuomo also had the audacity to stress that DiFiore was the best choice out of multiple candidate for the position.

By the way, Preet Bharara was present at the ceremony.  While he was clearly invited to be appeased and not to pursue Cuomo and DiFiore for their crimes, I wonder whether Bharara used the opportunity to collect evidence of Cuomo's and DiFiore's misconduct.  I guess, we will learn about that in the future.

Cuomo posted some other tweets in connection with the swearing-in ceremony that are clearly bizarre and shows the state of mind (or lack of any mind, rather) of the New York State Governor.

If a judge, even the state Chief Judge, even the deceased former state Chief Judge, says something stupid, it is not necessary to repeat it.

Cuomo did.

He stated that allegedly Judge Judith Kaye, former and now deceased Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals said that "Court of Appeals was lawyer heaven".  The statement is clearly dubious on so many levels that, once again, it has better not be repeated during a swearing-in ceremony of a new Chief Judge - of all occasions.

But, since Cuomo wanted to introduce the name of his also recently deceased father into the ceremony, it did not matter whether the statement of Judith Kaye he quoted was dubious and inappropriate for the occasion - as long as he could state that heavens "acquired" "a couple of pretty good lawyers - Kaye and Mario Cuomo" (Andrew Cuomo's father).

How Cuomo knows whether Kaye and his father went to heaven rather than to hell or purgatory - is anybody's guess.  

How Cuomo knows whether Kaye was even religious, and whether the concept of "heaven" was in accordance with her religion, is also anybody's guess.  

The important thing for Cuomo obviously was to inject his father's name into the ceremony.

He did it once again later.

Cuomo is proud that, like his father, he is "only one of two governors to have appointed the entire court".

Yet, since judges of the Court of Appeals are replaced only when the previous one's terms run out, or when they retire through mandatory or voluntary retirement during their terms, I wonder what is this point of pride - that judges on the highest court reached their retirement age, their term expired or they decided to retire voluntarily during the time when the Cuomos - father and son - were Governors?

That is some kind of pride?

Nothing else to be proud of?

And - what Mario Cuomo, his passing, his allegedly being an "excellent lawyer" or his allegedly going to heaven has to do with swearing in of the new Chief Justice of New York State Court of Appeals?

But, to crown it all, Cuomo posted the following:

A shrine to justice is a "holy or sacred place".

The courthouse and the courtroom is, admittedly, beautiful, even though the expense of creating and maintaining a palace for several people to gather and resolve disputes (which is what courts do) is completely unwarranted from a taxpayer point of view.

But, since the New York State Court of Appeals is "a shrine" now, are now supposed to treat it as an untouchable holy relic instead of a place where our public servants are supposed to work properly - or be fired if they do not work well?

On the other hand, once you call something "a shrine", it will look bad if anybody would dare to criticize how the "shrine" works.  A shrine should not work, it is there to be admired and worshiped.  

Right?

Well, nothing unexpected from Cuomo - and I will provide the full analysis of the swearing-in hearing/ceremony when I am finished with reviewing it.

Stay tuned.

New York Attorney General discriminates against his employee, a female appellate attorney

Telecommuting jobs are on the rise in this country.

A female appellate attorney who worked for the New York State Attorney General wanted to telecommute due to her disability.

I have done appellate work for years, I can speak from experience, and I can state as an expert that appellate attorneys work with PUBLIC records - court decisions and records of court proceedings below.

There is no secrecy involved in their jobs requiring their presence on the job, and if certain sealed records are (rarely) part of the record on appeal, that particular part of the record can be reviewed by coming to the office - otherwise an appellate attorney can work from home 100%, without any problems.

Especially if she is dealing with appeals in federal courts where filings are electronic, and can be done instantly from any place on the planet with an Internet connection.  

Attorney Fischer, due to her disability, wanted just that, to work from home.

That was certainly a type of reasonable accommodation that Americans With Disabilities Act.

Her male boss, Attorney Schneiderman, an elected public official who is sworn to protect federal Constitution and federal laws - including rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, gave her whopping 3 days a month to work from home - and then fired her when she was on an unpaid disability leave.

Once again, Schneiderman was under the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate attorney Fischer's disability, and providing a 100% telecommuting job was certainly a reasonable accommodation.

Instead, Schneiderman fired her while she was on an unpaid disability leave (that she was, likely, forced to take because she could not 100% telecommute) and fought her tooth and claw when she sued him for discrimination.

Well, Schneiderman's intermediary appeal failed, and the case is back in the district court, awaiting court-ordered "mediation".

Maybe, Schneiderman will see the light now?

Maybe, Schneiderman will see that it was easier, fairer and certainly cheaper for New York taxpayers to have Ms. Fischer work 100% from home, as her type of job certainly allows her to do.

Is it reasonable to expect fairness and fiscal frugality from New York State Attorney General?

New York state prosecutors, the happy owners of "The Right Thing"

With much fanfare, New York State District Attorneys Association has updated their "ethics" book, "The Right Thing", which reportedly existed, believe it or not, since 2011.

Of course, I practiced criminal law during 2011 through November 2015 period, and prosecutors with whom I dealt (all of them, no exception) demonstrated blissful unawareness of "The Right Thing", or of any norms of ethics.

But, here is this "Right Thing".

In the preliminary letter to "The Right Thing" of 2016, it has been stated that "The Right Thing" is being distributed to every prosecutors in New York state.

Actually, the same statement was made in the previous versions of "The Right Thing".

Participation of an Onondaga County prosecutor caught my attention.  

Probably, because of a lawsuit against the Onondaga County DA alleging that he, in collusion with his law school buddy, Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District James Tormey, first criminally prosecuted, and then discriminated in employment, a female court interpreter.

That is, after the Onondaga County DA engaged in extortion of a former judge Bryan Hedges who provided information for another discriminated court employee, which information resulted in a major lawsuit against Tormey and a major settlement (out of New York taxpayers' pockets') for Tormey's misconduct.  When extortion did not work, Onondaga County DA orchestrated taking him off the bench, after he already resigned. 

It takes a tremendous amount of prosecutorial ethics to do all of that.

Here is how "The Right Thing" starts out.

Apparently, New York state prosecutors do know about this case and about their "dual duties".

I am sure this is not visible in how they handle cases - not with the amount of unaddressed prosecutorial misconduct, not with the amount of wrongful convictions, not with lobbying New York Senator DeFrancisco to withdraw his bill for a separate Commission dealing with discipline against prosecutors, because current attorney disciplinary committees would not prosecute prosecutors (see testimony of Bill Bastuk, co-founder and chairman of "It Could Happen to You" at the public hearing in Buffalo, NY before New York Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline on  August 4, 2016).

Yet, with all the wrong things that prosecutors are doing - and continuing to do - in New York, look at the self-conceited claims that only them, and not the judges, and certainly not the defense attorneys who get to "do the right thing":

They have the audacity to claim that it is their job "to find the truth" - and that they are actually doing it.

Prosecutors acknowledge that they have a great power to change, sometimes irreversibly, lives of victims of crimes, those accused of crimes and of their families:

Of course, rights of victims of crimes are considered only when they put another notch in for the prosecutor and helped him obtain another conviction that he seeks.  Otherwise, victims have no rights in criminal prosecution - or at least that's what Judge Gary Rosa told me in his recent letter.

Remember, this is a foreword to a book of ethics for New York prosecutors, people, who amassed staggering numbers of wrongful convictions and whose misconduct is legendary.

Here is what they say about themselves and the system that drums up these wrongful convictions:

"...the fairest system humans have devised".  That's New York criminal justice system?  Either the DA's association is delusional or I am dreaming.

New York DA's association claims that:

A prosecutor's worst nightmare is to convict an innocent?  Like they actually give a rat's ass about guilt or innocence?  Prosecutors I came across cared about only one thing - convictions.  For something.  Anything.  That's their "record".  That's their career, promotions, job security.

95% or more criminal convictions in this country is through plea bargains.

Many plea bargains happen not because a person is guilty, but because the odds of winning the trial against a fabricated case and perjured police testimony is low, and people choose criminal record with probation and fines over prison time, or less prison time over more prison time if convicted after trial, even when they are innocent.

Who orchestrates those wrongful pleas?

Prosecutors.

Who has the power to withdraw criminal charges and not try to obtain wrongful pleas where there is no evidence of criminal conduct?

Prosecutors.

Will they do that?

In your dreams.

I must note that the guidebook says absolutely nothing about wrongful plea bargains, absolutely nothing about wrongful convictions, and absolutely nothing about prosecutorial misconduct in New York, which is traceable AT THE VERY LEAST by claims made under oath in federal civil rights lawsuits - those civil rights lawsuits dismissed for prosecutorial immunity without reaching the merits.

Look how the DA's association warns prosecutors about consequences of their potential unethical behavior:

Now, if prosecutors "may be censured, suspended, or disbarred", why then the same DA's association "descended upon the Capitol like paratroopers" to block creation of a separate Commission on prosecutorial conduct claiming that the system that does not prosecute prosecutors "works just fine"?



Of course, there is a POSSIBILITY that a prosecutor may be prosecutors for crimes committed in office, and the DA's association readily demonstrates cases governing such criminal prosecution against prosecutors:

Yet, do you know a lot of prosecutors being prosecuted for misconduct in office?

Any?

Like in the testimony I quoted above before the New York Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline indicating that the DA's Association claimed it will bring to NYS Senator DeFrancisco a list of disciplined prosecutors.  And the Association is still taking its sweet time with bringing the list.

But, the DA's Association continues to drone on and pretend they are their "to do the right thing":

Not to get rich?  I don't know about that.  Look at all judges who are very well provided for and very well connected politically.  Nearly all of them have prosecutorial jobs in their past.  Talking about rich.

Unethical conduct will rob a New York state prosecutor of his or her self-esteem?

They come to the prosecutorial office because "they know right from wrong and its important to them to be on the side of right"?

Really.  Not funny.

I encourage my readers to read this masterpiece of hypocrisy in its entirety.

It will certainly provide a good source of information about what the prosecutor MUST be doing - and is not doing - for criminal defendants and their attorneys.

So, thank you for that, at least, New York State DA's Association.

Now no prosecutor in the State of New York can state that they did not know what their ethical obligations are.

They all are the happy owners of "The Right Thing".  

Who will monitor the monitor?

On February 5, 2016 it has been announced, with much fanfare, that two former Southern District of New York (federal) prosecutors - from Preet Bharara's office, I understand - formed their own law firm, "Pallas Global Group" to offer services of "monitoring" over corporations after court settlements and of "claims administration" to government agencies.

The name of two fortunate former federal prosecutors who saw this lucrative business opportunity and grabbed it are Tiffany Moller and Bonnie Jonas.

As of today, February 8, 2016, Bonnie Jonas is still listed as an attorney for the Department of Justice on New York attorney registration website:

Tiffany Moller, for some interesting reason, is not listed as an attorney licensed in New York, even though, according to New York Times, Tiffany Moller was reportedly "the assistant deputy commissioner and chief of compliance and oversight of the New York Police Department."

A great career, isn't it?

First, you ensure compliance with the law by New York Police.

Then, you go into the position of potentially prosecuting New York Police (or protecting them from prosecution) as a federal prosecutor.

Then, after "training" as a federal prosecutor, you use your connections as a federal prosecutor and your training - at taxpayers' expense - to corner the multimillion dollar fees where your former boss will pitch at you corporations with which the boss reached "sweet deals" with a slap on the wrist - do not be bad boys and girls, pay my former employees for "monitoring" you, and you'll be fine...

"New York Times" ran a benign article on what the monitoring is and how the law firm will operate.

The same "New York Times", different author, was not so benign 2 years ago though, when it ran another article on the same cottage industry of "monitoring" after settlement with corporations after they were caught in wrongdoing.

In that 2014 article, New York Times exposed such schemes as giving lucrative jobs to former federal prosecutors, through the use of their connections to the government, jobs which would do little in changing behavior of corporations other than line the pockets of those former prosecutors.

I, as a taxpayer, resent the fact that the former prosecutors use connections that they acquire during their employment with the government to start businesses where they get clients because of such connections.

Also, since the new firm offers services to oversee corporations (which requires neutrality) and to "administer claims" of government agency (which requires advocacy), the inherent conflicts of interests are out in the open.

Three things are clear to me:

1) that prosecutors from the SDNY Preet Bharara's office are abandoning ship, raising the issues if they are afraid of repercussions that may follow for prosecuting high-ranking officials, and would prefer a lucrative and safe job of private "monitors" to the job of federal prosecutors;

2) that members of the legal profession who have connections start to prefer captive rich clients - such as corporations who were caught in misconduct and are required to hire a "monitor" of their activities;

and

3) that now we need to establish yet another agency to monitor the participants in the monitoring schemes:

• the court that agreed to a "sweet deal" requiring the monitor (former federal prosecutor) to be paid by the corporation caught in wrongdoing as a point of settlement;
• the federal prosecutor who negotiated such a deal, bringing multimillion dollar business into the hands of their former colleagues; and
• corporations who likely escaped with murder by having to pay a court-legitimized bribe into the "monitor".

That new agency should monitor whether the sweet deal, including the choice of the monitor, is a part of an organized criminal enterprise.

That lawyers will think nothing of engaging in such an enterprise, if it offers enough money, was recently proven by a sting on Manhattan attorneys who expressed willingness to help with international money laundering scheme.

I wonder, if those attorneys are prosecuted, and there are definitely (in my opinion as a legal expert in criminal law) grounds to prosecute them, will they also escape without any accountability if they "settle" and agree to pay some former federal prosecutors a couple of millions of dollars as a "monitoring" fee?

The fact that the "monitoring" business has been reportedly developing in the last 10 years, the same time when the market of paid legal services was shrinking, only proves that the legal profession is going through a major crisis.

That crisis, for people who are used to large and very large fees, while paying client base is shrinking, and while the legal elite is "running the country" and is never made accountable, no matter what it does, may push attorneys, prosecutors and judges - and corporations - to devise new ways to engage in criminal corrupt enterprise.

Like "monitoring" and "claims administration" - why not do that for kickbacks?  

The "monitor's fee" in itself looks like a court-ordered kickback to prosecutors already...  Especially when a federal prosecutor announces creation of such a lucrative firm while her name is still listed as one of the employee of the U.S. Justice Department.

There is a distinct potential for such criminal activities in this "monitoring" and "claims administration business", don't you think?

So, who will monitor the monitor?