Also, we’ve seen how unsubstantiated innuendo has influenced juries and arbitrators so it could do the same with the jury with the upcoming trial. Know it sounds simplisitic but attorneys with the better acting skills have often been able to impress the jury with their presentation more than with what they actually presented.

So for the Wilpons sake, I hope they have legal counsel that also took a few classses at the new school.

Also, regarding billing his clients more than they can get in return, he is not being paid by those he is representing but by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, a non-profit government sponsored organization whose funding comes from within the industry, not the victims.

http://www.answers.com/topic/securities-investor-protection-corporation-sipc

This.

I Agree with the point that Picard is basically collecting money for himself and his firm and getting squat for the Victims.

These cases should be set at a flat rate for the attorney’s and they get the fee they get regardless of how much they get back!

Or it should be limited to 2% or some other very low number to stop them from wasting a ton of clients time and dragging things out to increase the bill!

But unfortunatly Lawyers make the rules in this country!

Have the Wilpons also been victims? The Wilpons made many investments with Madow. Has their integrated rate of return been consistent with the marketplace over their long investment period? Is it possible that all parties have been victimized? Has anybody done the long, tedious work of figuring whether their returns have been poor, excessive or just average in the market? How will Judge Rakow view these issues?

If one of our attorney has insight into the points raised and knowledge of the relevancy of the Wilpon largesse because of Uncle Bernie, I’d be very interested.

When the last Madoff case is finished in the courts years and years from now, he and his staff will likely have billed about $600 million or more in legal fees. They have all gotten rich for life.

he charges by the hour, plus gets a % of everything recovered. So he has absolutely no incentive to settle. rather, he makes out by dragging it on for years, even if in the end he gets the same payout.

Now, if he was 100% on contingency, then you would see a desire to settle!

Joe D, I really appreciate the reasoned and objective way you’ve handled this issue –as opposed to the very vitriolic, self-serving and narrow approach by many bloggers, reporters and fans. Yet I have to strongly disagree with you about Sandomir.

I don’t question his accuracy at all as he no doubt has the reputation of his employer to uphold in that respect. But his objectivity has been in the toilet. Early on he served as the unabashed and enthusiastic PR mouthpiece for Picard, publishing story after story — based on court papers under seal or exclusive access to Picard’s lackeys — that painted a one-sided, damaging and often irrelevant story of the Mets owners’ involvement with Madoff. Only after the case got into Rakoff’s court and the tide started turning against Picard did Sandomir seem to temper his position and move a little toward the center. I attribute that to merely him seeing the writing on the wall and not wanting to end up looking like a fool.

Is he better than some? Sure, but only by comparison. He looks completely objective placed next to someone like Megdal. But his agenda nonetheless has poked through strongly throughout all this.

Nice imagery.

I’ve read that pretty much all of Picard’s “expert witnesses” have been tossed out of the case.

Regarding Picard, the way I’ve understood it is the more money he wins back for victims, the more money his firm makes as well. Stands to reason ‘settling’ wouldn’t be his first choice. Something wrong with the system here on this one.

All the book writing, tee shirt selling, hidden agendas, etc. should have no bearing on justice being served. If it does, it certainly doesn’t say much about the judge who is responsible for making a ruling on this by 5 March. His sole responsibility is to look at the facts, not the propaganda surrounding this case. Each side doing their own posturing is pretty common but a competent judge should be able to weed through that and deal with facts only.

If it does go to a jury trial, well then anything can happen there.