May 21, 2006

More reactions and commentary: Peter Henning explores the possibly relevant distinction between fraud and dishonesty, especially as regards the offense of "deprivation of honest services", and sketches out a possible defense for Milberg, namely to argue that "the victim really never lost anything and the defendants didn't get more than what a judge and opponent said they deserved". Betsy Newmark thinks the "story should be as big as Enron". Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters traces the political implications, Milberg being a heavy-hitting donor to elected officials. Larry Ribstein criticizes the decision to indict the firm as a whole. Independent Sources isn't impressed with the Milberg defense website. Right Thinking Girl links to a Bloomberg piece on the Arthur Andersen parallel. I've got a roundup at Overlawyered with reactions from Stephen Bainbridge, Evan Schaeffer and others, and also a post noting a peculiarly ill-timed announcement.