Monday, October 29, 2012
DC has its share of outstanding white collar practitioners, but some of the very best of them don't often make it into the news. Why? Because they are quietly busy, around the clock and the globe, protecting the reputations, pocket-books, and other interests of their clients. They do this by conducting internal investigations, defending against government inquiries, creating state of the art compliance programs, and offering sound strategic advice. The whole point is to keep your clients out of the news. Two of the very best of these trusted white collar counselors are former Deputy AG George J. Terwilliger III and my old friend Bob Bittman, who are moving this Thursday from White & Case to Morgan Lewis. Terwilliger and Bittman will be Partners in the White Collar Litigation & Government Investigations Group. George and Bob are moving over with experienced white collar hands (and fomer AUSAs) Dan Levin and Matt Miner. Here is the Morgan Lewis Press Release. Congratulations to George, Bob, Dan, and Matt.
Friday, October 26, 2012
This panel was moderated by James Felman (Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A.). The opening panelist, Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson, Vice-Chair, U.S. Sentencing Commission, spoke about the 2012 Guideline Amendments which go into effect soon if Congress does not modify the changes. Some of these changes are in the white collar crime arena. Specifically, there are modifications to certain frauds – insider trading, mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and financial institution fraud. Many of these changes regard the determinations of loss. In some instances the commission changed the application notes.The speaker also noted that the Sentencing Commission is in a multi-year study of economic crimes. (proposed amendments can be found here)
Providing a congressional perspective was Bobby Vassar (Chief Minority Counsel, Subcommittee Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives) who reminded us that no one gets defeated in an election by being tough on crime. Providing an executive perspective was Michael Rotker, Criminal Appellate Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From the defense side was Amy Baron Evans, Federal Defenders Sentencing Resource Counsel.
Two individuals provided international perspectives: Clarisse Moreno (Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A.) and Stephan Terblanche (University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa). Ms Moreno noted that in France if you get two years or less, very rarely will you serve prison time. Absent it being a human rights violation, in Norway the maximum penalty is 21 years. Ms. Moreno also noted that the recidivism rate is low in Norway. Stephan Terblanche noted that where movies and other items from the U.S. are looked at elsewhere, the sentencing guidelines do not export very well. Having the international perspective offered by these speakers was particularly fascinating and offered a welcomed dimension to this sentencing discussion.
The opening address was given by Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Attorney General. He talked about how to make our system “effective, efficient, and just.” He noted that the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is aligned with the Heritage Foundation on this important issue of overcriminalization. He spoke about the improper use of the criminal law and process for political reasons and social regulation, emphasizing the misuse of limited resources. He gave some frightening examples of how ordinary law-abiding citizens were caught up in the criminal process. He said that the estimate today is that there are over 5,000 criminal statutes and then there are also regulatory offenses, and his estimate is over 300,000 federal criminal penalizing statutes and regulations. He noted the lack of a meaningful mens rea in many of these statutes. He mentioned how overcriminalization problems in the United States also involve cases in international law. He suggested that we need education (educating the public and legislators) and also legislators should not be able to delegate criminal responsibility to an agency for the creation of a crime. The legislature should also make crimes clear with a necessary ingredient being the mens rea. In this regard he advocated for an innovation of using mistake of law, something that is being experimented with in New Jersey. Finally, placing all criminal laws in Title 18 is something that he thinks will assist.
This opening address was a lead into a discussion of the next panel on the topic of Overcriminalization,
a panel moderated by Professor Sara Sun Beale. She started with questions of asking whether we have a problem of Overcriminalization and if so, what do we should do about it. The first speaker was Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. She said that U.S. detains youth five times more than the next industrialized country. She noted that Japan does not detain their youth; they resolve issues in an alternative method. Community based alternatives are needed. Professor Roger Fairfax (George Washington) discussed the “smart on crime” philosophy. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn, New York, who created 29 new alternative programs, including a re-entry program, noted the need for criminal law reform.The last speaker was Professor Luis Chiesa (Pace Law School), who offered a comparative perspective from a civil law view. He suggested using rules of construction similar to European courts and others. This international perspective added another dimension to this discussion.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The sentencing is today at 2:00 PM Southern District of New York Time. (And is there really any other time in the Universe?)
As I noted on Monday, Gupta's Guidelines Range, according to the Government and the Probation Office, is 97-121 months.That's a Level 30. Gupta's attorneys put Gupta's Guidelines Range at 41-51 months. That's a Level 22. The different calculations are based on different views of the gain and/or loss realized and/or caused by Gupta. Gupta's attorneys are seeking a downward variance and asking for probation, with rigorous community service in Rwanda. Serving a sentence in Rwanda is not as strange as it may sound on first hearing. After all, criminal defendants in Louisiana regularly do time in Angola.
But seriously, lawyers and germs, there is a practice pointer in here somewhere. Practitioners naturally strive to obtain the lowest possible Guidelines Range as a jumping off point for the downward variance. It is psychologically easier for a judge to impose a probationary sentence when the Guidelines Range is low to begin with. It is legally easier as well, because the greater the variance from the Guidelines, the greater the judicially articulated justification must be.
But too many lawyers push the envelope in their Guidelines arguments, thereby risking appellate reversal on procedural grounds. This is a particular danger when the judge is already favorably disposed toward the defendant and looking for ways to help him. Failure to correctly calculate the Guidelines is a clear procedural error. (Some of the federal circuits try to get around Booker, Gall, and Kimbrough by setting up rigorous procedural tests. The Fourth Circuit is the most notorious outlier in this regard.) Lawyers must be on guard against the possibly pyrrhic and costly victory of an incorrectly calculated Guideline range, followed by probation. One solution is to have the court rule on alternative theories. "This is the Guidelines Range. These are my reasons for downward variance. Even if the Guidelines Range was really at X, as the Government argues, I would still depart to Y for the same and/or these additional reasons." If the judge already likes your client, getting him or her to do this is often an easy task.
Of course, Judge Rakoff needs no instructions in this regard. One of our ablest and sharpest jurists, and a leading Guidelines critic, he will attempt to correctly calculate the Guidelines Range in an intellectually honest manner and will downwardly (or upwardly) vary as he damn well sees fit, with ample articulation.
Monday, October 22, 2012
As my colleague Solomon Wisenberg wrote, see here, former Goldman Sachs director Rajat K. Gupta is scheduled to be sentenced this Wednesday, October 24, by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York upon his conviction of insider trading and conspiracy.
The sentencing decision in this case is a particularly difficult one. On the one hand, Gupta is (or was) a man of exceedingly high repute who has done extraordinary good works, as attested to in sentencing letters by Bill Gates and Kofi Annan, and, if sentencing were based on an evaluation of the defendant's entire life, even considering the serious blemish of this case, Gupta might well deserve commendation and not punishment.
On the other hand, the crime for which Gupta was convicted, albeit arguably aberrational, was a brazen and egregious breach of the faith which was placed in him precisely because of his outstanding reputation. Indeed, while Gupta's motivation appears not to have been greed or personal gain, a factor that ordinarily would suggest leniency, one may conclude that his crimes resulted from an arrogance of power and privilege and the belief that as a "master of the universe" he was above the law.
Gupta, having gone to trial and expected to appeal (challenging the same wiretap that is a subject of the appeal by Raj Rajaratnam discussed by my other colleague, Ellen S. Podgor, see here), is at somewhat of a disadvantage. Since any statements he may make discussing his motivation or showing remorse could probably be used as admissions in a potential new trial, he did not admit wrongdoing or demonstrate remorse, factors viewed favorably by most sentencing judges. Although I strongly doubt that Judge Rakoff will "punish" Gupta for going to trial, as some judges do, the judge will be unable to consider any understandable and perhaps sympathetic motivation or any remorse, if either exists, as a mitigating circumstance.
As often happens, both sides have made extreme sentencing requests. The government asks for a sentence of 97 to 121 months, what it claims is the appropriate sentencing guidelines range. The defense is seeking probation with community service in Rwanda, supported by a request from a Rwandan governmental official, or alternatively New York. At first blush, the request for community service in Rwanda struck me as either a "Hail Mary" hope, an accommodation to a client or family who are unwilling to accept reality, or a deliberately lowball request in the expectation of a middle ground sentence. On further consideration, however, I believe that a sentence of, say, two years performing "community service" in Rwanda while living in spartan conditions (a modest one-room apartment, cooking his own meals, not having servants, etc.), might not be inappropriate. Rather than wasting Gupta's enormous talents and intellect in prison, such a sentence would enable him to provide considerable benefit to society. Indeed, such a sentence would probably be much more onerous for Gupta than confinement in a federal minimum security camp. To be sure, there is a serious question whether such community service could be suitably monitored.
Of course, Judge Rakoff, however independent, fearless and innovative as he is, will not sentence Gupta in a vacuum. He will no doubt consider sentences that he and other judges have meted out to lesser-known defendants in other insider trading cases and how his sentence will appear to the public in terms of deterrence and equal justice. Gupta should not buy his plane ticket yet.
Rajat Gupta is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Jed Rakoff on Wednesday. The Rajat Gupta Sentencing Memo filed last week by his attorneys is an outstanding work of its kind, and the Government's Sentencing Memo in U.S. v. Gupta is also quite good.
Gupta's Guidelines Range, according to the Government and the Probation Office, is 97-121 months. Gupta's attorneys, led by Gary Naftalis, put Gupta's Guidelines Range at 41-51 months. The different calculations appear to be based entirely on different views of the gain and/or loss realized and/or caused by Gupta. Key issues are whether Judge Rakoff should include the acquitted conduct in the loss calculations (which he is allowed but not required to do) and whether the gain should be confined to Gupta and his co-conspirators, as opposed to other investors. Gupta's attorneys are arguing for probation, with a condition of rigorous community service in New York or Rwanda.
My guess is that, however he gets there, Judge Rakoff will impose a prison sentence of 3 to 6 years. The judge is a well-known critic of the Guidelines and Gupta has apparently led a life of extraordinary kindness and good works. On the other hand, Gupta is an enormously wealthy member of the financial elite to whom much has been given. He stands convicted of insider trading, which everybody on Wall Street knows is illegal. This was not a case in which ambiguous admitted conduct did or did not violate the outer edges of the insider trading laws. This was a case in which Gupta either tipped clearly confidential, proprietary inside information or he didn't. The jury has ruled that he did, at least with respect to four of the six charged counts. Judge Rakoff must and will accept that verdict. I believe that Judge Rakoff will see it as his judicial duty to send, through Gupta's sentence, a message of general deterrence.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
On October 25th the Second Circuit will hear oral arguments in the Rajaratnam case. There are several significant issues that are likely to be decided here. The three issues presented by Appellant include an improper wiretap application, alleged misstatements upon which the wiretap is premised, and an argument premised on causation and whether the jury instruction was proper in explaining the causation issue to the jury. The government in response spends a significant portion of its brief on the facts and proceedings, not reaching the legal arguments until page 32 of its brief. They focus on whether the "errors and omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth" and whether these errors were material. It really is a sad commentary when the government has to expend so much time on explaining their mistakes and why their mistakes should be overlooked here. The opening line of the reply brief says it all - "Ironically, like its wiretap affidavit, it is what the government does not say in its brief that is most important."
One aspect pointed out in the amicus brief of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the Bronx Defenders - "the government failed in upholding its duty of candor to the authorizing court." These hearings are ex parte hearings and candor is crucial for them. This is also emphasized by the retired judges amicus brief (eight former federal and district court judges) who filed their brief in support of neither party. They state,"[f]rom their years of service on the bench, amici are keenly aware that the warrant process depends on the candor and forthrightness of the government, and that deceptive conduct of the kind that the district court found to have occurred in this case makes meaningful judicial review of wiretap applications impossible."
The most fascinating issue is how the government used wiretapping as a key component of this case. Amicus Author Professor Blakely (w/ Tai H. Park), a key author of the Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 reminds the Court of the scope of Title III and the need to retain the right to privacy.
It is hoped that the court will also examine the scope of wiretapping, especially in this white collar SEC case.
The briefs -
Appellant's Brief - Download 2012.01.25 Apellant Brief
USAO Brief - Download 2012.04.25 USAO Merits Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief - Download 2012.05.16 Appellant Reply Brief
See Blakely Amicus Brief - Download Prof_Blakey_Amicus_Brief (final)
See National Legal Aid & Defender Assoc Amicus Brief - Download 2012.02.01 Amicus Brief--Nat'l Legal Aid and Def. Assoc
See Retired Judges Amicus Brief - Download 2012.02.01 Amicus Brief--Reitred Federal
See also Grant McCool, Reuters, Rajaratnam's insider-trading appeal set for Oct. 25.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
NACDL, Defending the White Collar Case, see here
Second Annual White Collar Criminal Defense College at Stetson, see here
International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, ABA Criminal Justice Section, AALS, Fifth Annual Fall Institute - Sentencing, Reentry, Juvenile Justice, Legal Education, see here
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Jrl Law News Now, Acquitted In-House Lawyer Warns of the ‘Criminalization’ of Law Practice
Lynn A. Neils joins Covington- see here
Tresa Baldes & Jim Schaefer, Detroit Free Press, In public corruption trial, Kilpatrick's lawyer says government witness is a liar, gambler, and a tax cheat
Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, Rajaratnam Case Cooperator Goel Gets Two Years Probation
Michael J. De La Merced & Peter Lattman, NYTimes, Former Programmer Demands That Goldman Cover His Legal Fees
Mike Scarcella, BLT Blog, Former House Official Wants Public Corruption Conviction Overturned (hat tip to Ivan Dominguez)
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
We all make mistakes. We are all flawed. It is a relatively rare prosecutor who has not committed, overseen, or sufferred on his watch some kind of Brady error somewhere along the way. Usually it is unintentional. Prosecutors are not naturally inclined or oriented to sniff out Brady materials. (They are paid to win.) And case law is clear. Brady error occurs irrespective of prosecutorial knowledge or intent. Indeed, defense attorneys are trained to make Brady arguments that do not impugn the integrity of prosecutors. This is because most judges, particularly federal judges, do not like to see personal attacks on prosecutors.
But then there are the egregious cases-- blatantly obvious examples of Brady/Giglio materials that should have been, but were not, disclosed to the defense. What is the bar to do when confronted with such cases? One thing is clear. Congress to date has not had the guts to deal with this problem. The Department of Justice lacks both the guts and inclination to do anything about it. Do you doubt me for one moment? You only have to look at the pathetic administrative punishment meted out to the Ted Stevens line prosecutors, and the complete whitewash of their superiors. You only have to search the DOJ website for DOJ-OPR's Report on the Stevens debacle. Hint--you won't find it there.
What is the solution to the persistent blight of jaw-droppingly obvious Brady/Giglio violations? One solution is to bring ethical complaints against purportedly miscreant prosecutors in appropriate instances. Which brings us to the case of former DC AUSA Andrew J. Kline, currently making its way through the bar disciplinary process.The BLT has posted on the Kline case here and here. DC Bar Counsel wants Kline censured for an alleged Brady/Giglio violation that also runs afoul, according to Bar Counsel, of the arguably broader Rule 3.8(e) of the DC Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.8(e) states in pertinent part that: "The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not . . . intentionally fail to disclose to the defense, upon request and at a time when use by the defense is reasonably feasible, any evidence or information that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused . . . ."
The defense bar often talks about using various state versions of Rule 3.8(e) in tandem with Brady/Giglio, in part to get around the Brady/Giglio materiality problem. Here is a Bar Counsel actually doing something about it. Kline vigorously denies that the withheld information was material or that he intentionally engaged in any wrongdoing.
What information did Kline actually withhold? He was prosecuting Arnell Shelton for the shooting of Christopher Boyd. Shelton had filed an alibi notice and "the reliability of the government's identification witnesses" was the principal issue at the 2002 trial, according to the Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Nine ("Report and Recommendation"). Kline spoke with Metropolitan Police Department Officer Edward Woodward in preparation for trial. Kline took contemporaneous notes. Woodward was the first officer at the scene of the crime and spoke to victim Boyd at the hospital shortly after the shooting.
According to the Report and Recommendation, Kline's notes of his conversation with Woodward were, in pertinent part, as follows: "Boyd told officer at hospital that he did not know who shot him–appeared maybe to not want to cooperate at the time. He was in pain and this officer had arrested him for possession of a machine gun …"
At trial Boyd identified Shelton as the shooter. According to Bar Counsel, Kline never disclosed Boyd's hospital statement to the defense despite a specific Brady/Giglio request for impeachment material. The other identification witnesses were weak and/or impeachable.
The case ended in a hung jury mistrial and the alleged Brady material (that is, Boyd's hospital statement to Woodward) was not revealed to the defense until literally the eve of the second trial, even though DC-OUSA prosecutors and supervisors had known about it for some time. When the trial court found out about the hospital statement and that it had not been disclosed before the first trial because Kline did not consider it exculpatory, the court was thunderstruck: "I don’t see how any prosecutor could take that position. . . I don’t see how any prosecutor anywhere in any state in the country, could say I don’t have to turn that over because I think I know why he said that." See DC Bar Counsel's corrected Brief at 8.
The court offered defense counsel a continuance, but she elected to go to trial as her client was then in jail. The second trial ended in Shelton's conviction.
Kline's position now is that the hospital statement was not material, hence not Brady, because Boyd was in pain and being treated for a gunshot wound at the time and because Shelton was ultimately convicted upon retrial.
Bar Counsel's position is that the withheld hospital statement was material and exculpatory and therefore Brady material, but that even if it was not Brady material, the failure to turn it over violated Rule 3.8(e). Bar Counsel seeks a public censure of Mr. Kline.
DOJ argues, via the DC U.S. Attorney's Office amicus brief, that DC Rule 3.8(e) is no broader than Brady. This is not a surprising or frivolous argument. What is surprising is DOJ's position that Boyd's withheld hospital statement was not material under Brady. DOJ is taking this position at the same time it is trying to convince Congress and the Courts that it can be trusted to discipline and police prosecutors for discovery violations. Is anybody watching?
A further subject for investigation is the decision of DC-OUSA supervisors to withhold the Boyd hospital statement until the evening before the retrial. Let's see if DOJ takes the lead on that.
DC Bar Counsel and Hearing Committee Nine should be commended for addressing this issue. Oral Argument is scheduled to take place before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility on October 11, 2012, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom II of the Historic Courthouse of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, located at 430 E Street NW.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
An interesting issue is presented to the Supreme Court on cert - defense witness immunity. The case of Walton v. the United States presents an issue that has plagued many a defense counsel - what do you do when you have a critical defense witness who will not testify without immunity. The government has the ability to give a witness immunity and often they do so in criminal cases to secure cooperation for the prosecution. But shouldn't the defense also be allowed this immunity when the evidence that would be offered is exculpatory to the defendant? This cert petition presents strong arguments showing the differing views among the circuits on defense witness immunity.
The Walton Petition also has a post-Global Tech issue. (for background on Global Tech, see here and here). The obvious is argued - Global Tech applies to criminal cases. The Court used criminal law doctrine in deciding the case, so of course it should apply to criminal law decisions. I am covering Global Tech in both criminal law and white collar crime classes because it summarizes the law on willful blindness. If the Court was using this criminal standard for a civil case and remarking that this is how it gets handled criminally, therefore, of course, it must be the appropriate standard for a criminal case. Even in his dissent, Justice Kennedy notes that "[t]he Court appears to endorse the willful blindness doctrine here for all federal criminal cases involving knowledge." He didn't like that they were doing this, but it was pretty clear that this is what they did. This cert petition, if granted, will send this message loudly and clearly to the Fifth Circuit.
Filing a separate cert petition is James Brooks. Argued here by attorneys Gerald H. Goldstein and Cynthia Eve Hujar Orr are that "[t]he jury instructions here not only failed to require that Brooks take deliberate steps to blind himself to the illegal purpose of his conduct, but additionally instructed the jury that he did not need to 'know' or even suspect that his conduct was unlawful."Global Tech clearly requires both.
Petition for Cert for Brookes - Download Brooks Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Friday, October 5, 2012
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force activities of yesterday were impressive (see here), but not new for the present AG's office. AG Holder promised that health care fraud would be a priority, and he has carried through with this promise. In this recent instance we are seeing 91 individuals being indicted across the country in a massive "Medicare Fraud Takedown." Assistant AG Lanny Breuer stated that "[t]his represents one of the largest Medicare fraud takedowns in Department history, as measured by the amount of alleged fraudulent billings." AG Holder noted that "[s]ince the first Strike Force was launched in 2007, these teams have charged nearly 1,500 defendants for falsely billing the Medicare program more than $4.8 billion."
Although I have not counted them, I can note that the DOJ press releases coming through my emails definitely support their claim that health care fraud has been a top priority for this DOJ.
Some may argue that those being indicted here are not the real offenders in the system - after all, how many lower level individuals get caught in instances of trying to do what they think is required of them in their job. But two things come from any large scale prosecution such as this one: 1) with convictions will come general deterrence - in that they will be sending a message to others in the system that fraudulent conduct will not be tolerated; and 2) through these indictments, are likely to come more prosecutions as individuals plead guilty and offer to cooperate with the government.
The NACDL White Collar Criminal Defense College at Stetson is a "boot-camp" program for practitioners wishing to gain key advocacy skills and learn substantive white collar law. The program will cover client retention, investigation in a white collar case, handling searches and grand jury subpoenas, and dealing with parallel proceedings. Participants will have the experience of negotiating a plea, making proffers, and examining which experts to hire and how to protect the client in this process. Interactive sessions with top white collar practitioners will allow the participants to learn trial skills such as opening statements, cross-examination, jury instructions, closing arguments, and sentencing – all in the context of a white collar matter. For more information here and to apply here.
When - January 9-13
Where- Stetson University College of Law, 1401 61st St. S., Gulfport, FL 33707
Hotel - Loews Don CeSar Hotel, 3400 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, FL 33706
A. Brian Albritton - Phelps Dunbar, LLP
Michael Attanasio - Cooley, LLP
Henry W. Asbill - Jones Day
Steven Benjamin - Benjamin & DesPortes, P.C. (President of NACDL)
Joseph Bodiford - Bodiford Law
Barry Boss - Cozen O'Connor
Ellen C. Brotman - Montgomery McCracken
Robert M. Cary - Williams & Connolly, LLP
Lee A. Coppock - Stetson University College of Law
David Debold - Gibson Dunn
Lucian E. Dervan -Southern Illinois University School of Law
Ernest Dixon - Navigant Consulting
Donna Lee Elm - Federal Public Defender, Middle District of Florida
James E. Felman - Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A.
Jack E. Fernandez - Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
Roberta Flowers - Stetson University College of Law
Todd Foster - Todd Foster Law Group
Ross H. Garber - Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
David Gerger - Gerger & Clarke
Lawrence S. Goldman -Goldman & Johnson
Helen Gredd - Lankler Siffert & Wohl, LLP
John Wesley Hall, Jr. - John Wesley Hall Little Rock Criminal Defense
Jan Lawrence Handzlik - Venable, LLP
Rusty Hardin - Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP
A. Jeff Ifrah - Ifrah Law
G. Douglas Jones - Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC
Anthony A. Joseph - Maynard Cooper and Gale, P.C.
David S. Krakoff - Buckley Sandler, LLP
Sara Kropf - Baker Botts, LLP
Latour Lafferty - Fowler White Boggs
John F. Lauro - Lauro Law Firm
Johnny Lee - Grant Thornton, LLP
Janet Levine - Crowell Moring
Abbe David Lowell - Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Bruce Lyons - Lyons & Sanders Chartered
Edward A. Mallett - Mallett and Saper, L.L.P.
Bruce Maloy - Maloy, Jenkins & Parker
David Oscar Markus -Markus & Markus, PLLC
J. Cheney Mason - J. Cheney Mason, P.A.
Jon May -May & Cohen,P.A.
Michael D.Monico - Monico, Pavich & Spevack
Jane W. Moscowitz -Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A.
Kevin J. Napper - Carlton Fields
Susan R. Necheles - Hafetz Necheles & Rocco
William Nortman - Akerman Senterfit
Cynthia Eva Orr - Goldstein,Goldstein & Hilley
J. Edward Page - Carlton Fields
Michael S. Pasano -Carlton Fields
Marjorie J. Peerce - Stillman & Friedman, P.C.
Patricia A. Pileggi -Schiff Hardin, LLP
Barry J. Pollack - Miller & Chevalier
Wes Reber Porter -Golden Gate University School of Law
Mark P. Rankin -Shutts and Bowen, LLP
Rochelle A. Reback -Reback Law, PL
Shana-Tara Regon -Director, White Collar Crime Project, NACDL
Charles H. Rose, III -Stetson University College of Law
Kerri L. Ruttenberg -Jones Day
Brian Sanvidge - Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP
Melinda Sarafa -Sarafa Law, LLC
Adam P. Schwartz -Carlton Fields
William N. Shepherd -Holland & Knight, LLP
Gail Shifman -Shifman Group
Neal R. Sonnett -Law Offices of Neal R. Sonnett, P.A.
Edward Suarez - The Law Offices of Ed Suarez, P.A.
Brian L. Tannebaum -Tannebaum Weiss, LLP
Larry D. Thompson - EVP Govt. Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary PepsiCo, Inc.
Gary R. Trombley -Trombley & Hanes
Lisa M. Wayne -Law Office of Lisa M. Wayne
Morris Weinberg, Jr. -Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
Jeffrey Weiner -Jeffrey S. Weiner, P.A.
Adrienne Urrutia Wisenberg -Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
Solomon L. Wisenberg - Barnes & Thornburg, LLP