First things first: Thank you, Dan & Co., for inviting me to guest blog. I am very excited to be here, and I look forward to an interesting visit.
Second thing second:
In theory, my first post out of the starting gate here should be strong, hard-hitting, and compelling, in the hopes of impressing the audience. That was my plan, anyway. But, as I took a break from drafting the hard-hitting and compelling post, I surfed WSJ.com, and I found an article that just baffled me. Stumped me. So much for the hard-charging start. (Just to be clear, I read the words in the article, and I understood their meaning, but I have been waffling for the past half hour on where I come out on the substance of the article. I am baffled about the “right” side of the argument at issue. )
The article, titled KPMG Case Sets Up Key Ruling on Legal Fees, notes an interesting and likely significant issue currently before Judge Kaplan (SDNY).
Summary: The government is prosecuting 16 former KPMG executives who are accused of marketing fraudulent tax shelters. Defense lawyers for the executives are complaining that the federal prosecutors are pressuring KPMG to cut off legal support for the 16 former executives, presumably to make the 16 defendants cave (my phrasing). It appears (to the defense lawyers) that the prosecutors on the case are hoping that KPMG will cut off support to the executives to curry favor with the prosecutors (or at least be viewed as “cooperating with the government”) and thereby avoid prosecution itself. It seems to the defense lawyers (as best I can tell) that the prosecutors are trying unscrupulously to get KPMG to basically “give up” its former employees in order to save themselves.