Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Too Much to Mock

Criminal defense is an afterthought.

Robert S. Ben­nett … has a problem.

The Hous­ton con­sumer lawyer (who … “does some crim­i­nal work”—records show him as coun­sel of record on a grand total of nine fed­eral crim­i­nal cases in the South­ern Dis­trict of Texas, and no state crim­i­nal cases in Har­ris County) took on rep­re­sen­ta­tion of R. Allen Stan­ford in March, after Stan­ford had been rep­re­sented by “lawyers with a Wash­ing­ton firm, a Hous­ton civil lawyer, Hous­ton crim­i­nal defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin, … court-appointed pub­lic defender [Mike Sokolow] and most recently Hous­ton crim­i­nal defense lawyers Kent Schaf­fer and George ‘Mac’ Secrest.” (Mac was part­ners with Robert C. “Bob” Ben­nett until that Bennett’s retire­ment; Robert S. is not related, as far as I know either to Robert C. or to Robert C. Bennett’s son Robert Todd Ben­nett.) For those of you keep­ing score at home, that brings the fired-badass count up to four.
Allen Stan­ford Documents

How did this … con­sumer lawyer wind up rep­re­sent­ing the lead defen­dant in a huge high-profile fed­eral white-collar case? Well you might ask; part of the answer is in this email from Ben­nett to Stanford’s daugh­ter, in which he bad­mouths Kent Schaf­fer and the Fed­eral Pub­lic Defender’s Office (includ­ing Michael Sokolow, who made the right call):
Allen Stan­ford Documents

At the time Robert S. Ben­nett came on the case as “concierge attor­ney” by malign­ing Schaf­fer and Sokolow, Hous­ton crim­i­nal defense lawyer Mike Ess­myer was lead coun­sel. This lasted until Stan­ford tried to fire Ess­myer in May, but Judge Hit­tner wouldn’t let Ess­myer off the case, instead mak­ing him second-chair to … Robert S. Bennett.

Then Las Vegas crim­i­nal defense lawyer David Ches­noff made noises about com­ing in as lead coun­sel, say­ing “that Stan­ford has trust in Ben­nett, but needs an expe­ri­enced […] crim­i­nal defense attor­ney to han­dle the case.” That didn’t pan out.

Hous­ton crim­i­nal defense lawyers Dan Cogdell and Jimmy Ardoin, on behalf of Bennett’s code­fen­dant Laura Holt, asked for a sev­er­ance “because of “circus-like” behav­ior by Stan­ford and his cur­rent lead […] crim­i­nal defense lawyer.” Here’s the motion:
Stan­ford Cir­cus Sev­er­ance Motion

One might get the impres­sion from read­ing the papers filed by Holt and Lloyds that Ben­nett and his “Ben­nett Nguyen Joint Ven­ture” saw the Stan­ford Defense as a resource to be developed.

Well, they just drilled a dry hole. Yes­ter­day Judge Atlas ruled that Lloyds did not have to pay for Stanford’s defense because he likely (for pur­poses of the civil fight over insur­ance cov­er­age; the crim­i­nal case will be before Judge Hit­tner) com­mit­ted money laun­der­ing. (Here’s a rid­dle: given the expan­sive­ness of “money laun­der­ing,” if a D&O pol­icy excludes money laun­der­ing, will it ever cover the defense of finan­cial crimes? When?)

Ess­myer is stuck on the case, but I’m bet­ting none of these other folks are eager to par­tic­i­pate at CJA rates:
Allen Stan­ford Documents

So instead of billing at $800 an hour as the “concierge attor­ney” man­ag­ing the highly-paid tal­ent, con­sumer lawyer Robert S. Ben­nett finds him­self lead coun­sel in a forced $125-per-hour criminal-defense deathmarch—nothing less than I would wish on a guy who dis­par­ages good lawyers to get a case.

He’d bet­ter pol­ish up his trial skills.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

5 Responses to “Too Much to Mock”

  1. Ha ha ha. Serves him right.

  2. What’s a ‘concierge’ attor­ney? Is this some Texan con­cept? I’m truly fas­ci­nated. How do I get into such a com­fort­able racket?

Leave a non-anonymous Reply