In re Weiss
Alan W. Friedberg, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Raymond Vallejo of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Respondent Melvyn I. Weiss was admitted to the practice of
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order, pursuant to
On April 2, 2008, respondent was convicted, upon his guilty plea, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California of racketeering conspiracy in violation of
According to the fourth superceding information, Milberg Weiss constituted an enterprise specializing in representing plaintiffs in class actions and shareholder derivative actions. Respondent admitted in his plea allocution and plea agreement, read in conjunction with the information, that he possessed substantial control over the management and control of Milberg Weiss’ business affairs and he joined in an illegal agreement among two or more individuals employed by or associated with Milberg Weiss to conduct the firm’s affairs through a “pattern of racketeering activity,” knowing of its object and intending to help accomplish it. It was further part of the conspiracy that respondent agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two racketeering acts in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.
Specifically, respondent admitted that beginning around the 1970s and continuing at least into 2005, he and other individuals at Milberg Weiss, entered into secret, illegal kickbacks with a cohort of persons who were essentially on call to act as lead plaintiffs in class actions. The Milberg Weiss partners who agreed to this secret pay arrangement to certain named plaintiffs included, among others, William Lerach, David Bershad, and Steven Schulman (the conspiring partners). The
Respondent further admitted that he agreed to the secret payment agreement between Milberg Weiss and Lazar; he was aware of the payment arrangements between Milberg Weiss and the Florida plaintiffs, and personally made a cash payment to one of those plaintiffs in the late 1980s; and he was aware of the payment arrangement between Milberg Weiss and Cooperman, to whom he personally made at least one payment by check. In addition, respondent and others caused Milberg Weiss to issue checks to intermediary law firms, lawyers and other professionals with the intent and understanding that the money would be distributed to the paid plaintiffs. Respondent and others also knew that although these payments were falsely described as, among other things, “referral fees” or “professional fees” owed by Milberg Weiss to the intermediaries, they were actually disguised kickbacks to the paid plaintiffs.
Additionally, respondent and others knew they had to conceal their payment scheme with the paid plaintiffs from the federal and state courts presiding over the class actions by making and causing to be made false and/or misleading statements in documents filed in class actions (including complaints, motions and certifications) and in testimony and discovery documents. Absent such concealment, there was a risk of disqualification because the kickbacks created an apparent conflict of interest between the paid plaintiffs and the class members they purported to represent. Respondent admitted that he knew the secret arrangement was improper. Among the false and/or misleading statements one or more of the conspiring partners caused to be submitted to the court in connection with four class actions were certifications by Cooperman, Lazar, and Vogel that they would not accept any payment for serving as a representative party beyond their pro rata shares of any recovery. These certifications falsely represented the true nature of Milberg Weiss’ payment arrangement with the paid plaintiffs and constituted four racketeering acts that formed a “pattern of racketeering activity” under
A conviction of a federal felony does not trigger automatic disbarment unless the offense would also constitute a felony
Respondent was convicted of racketeering conspiracy under
A person is guilty of the felony of enterprise corruption in violation of
In Matter of Schulman (51 AD3d 220 [2008]), another disciplinary matter arising out of the same illegal activity, this Court found essential similarity between the New York State felony of enterprise corruption in violation of
In addition, respondent’s admission that he knowingly participated in the filing of false certifications with federal courts in four different class actions in order to conceal the secret payment arrangements with the paid plaintiffs satisfies the elements of the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. This New York felony occurs when:
“[a] person . . . knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision . . . he offers or presents it to a public office . . . with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office”
(
Thus, respondent’s admissions of criminal conduct also satisfy the elements of the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (
Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee’s petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to
Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ., concur.
Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to April 2, 2008.