3
Miffed Over a Mole: Controversy erupts over a lawyer-informant who continued to practice law after admitting to a felony Author(s): MARK CURRIDEN Source: ABA Journal, Vol. 83, No. 5 (MAY 1997), pp. 36-37 Published by: American Bar Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27839550 . Accessed: 16/06/2014 13:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:33:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Miffed Over a Mole: Controversy erupts over a lawyer-informant who continued to practice law after admitting to a felony

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Miffed Over a Mole: Controversy erupts over a lawyer-informant who continued to practicelaw after admitting to a felonyAuthor(s): MARK CURRIDENSource: ABA Journal, Vol. 83, No. 5 (MAY 1997), pp. 36-37Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27839550 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 13:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:33:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEWS

Miffed Over a Mole Controversy erupts over a lawyer-informant who continued to practice law after admitting to a felony BY MARK CURRIDEN

The FBI and federal prosecutors

knew more than five years ago that Atlanta solo practitioner Leon ard "Lenny" B. Grossman had laun dered illegal drug money. The prob lem is, they didn't tell anyone, including the State Bar of Georgia, until last fall.

Now, the secrecy and a deal in which Grossman was used as a gov ernment informant have drawn sharp criticism from criminal de fense attorneys, bar disciplinary of ficials and national ethics experts.

State bar officials are con cerned because federal agents did not tell the bar that Grossman was an admitted felon and apparently failed to make sure he gave up his law practice. And some ethics ex

perts and criminal defense attor neys are angry at the FBI for turn ing a lawyer into a snitch and angry at Grossman for agreeing to it.

"This is an absolutely outra geous case," says Monroe Freed man, an ethics professor at Hofstra University School of Law. "I hope it's unique, but I wouldn't bet on it."

"What Lenny Grossman did is completely sleazy," says Atlanta trial lawyer Bruce Harvey, who represented a defendant charged as a result of information provided by Grossman. "He needs to be in the witness protection program to protect him from all the good, hon est, hardworking criminal defense lawyers out here who want to get their hands on him."

Laundryman for the FBI Grossman has admitted under

oath that he is, indeed, in the wit ness protection program, but the reason is because of the work he did for the government. His job: to pose as a dirty lawyer who could launder the money of a Chinese fraternal and business association believed to be running an Atlanta gambling house.

Grossman told a federal court when his plea agreement was an nounced last spring that he had stopped practicing law shortly after his 1991 arrest. But in October

1996, at the money-laundering trial of two association members, he admitted under cross-examination that he had continued to accept some legal cases.

Federal records show that offi cials failed to notify a court or the bar when Grossman first agreed to

. .........~ ~ * -

~* 44 ?

IIl

, -

plead guilty in 1991. (In Georgia, a

lawyer convicted of a felony auto matically loses his or her law li cense.) Indeed, the state bar did not revoke Grossman's license until Oct. 14, 1996?and only then be cause he had failed to pay his 1995 and 1996 bar dues.

Bill Smith, chief counsel for the state bar's disciplinary board, says he finds the Grossman case "dreadful. But unless he's actually convicted of a felony, we wouldn't be told about it. Unless someone calls it to our attention, there's no way we would find out about this."

Patrick Crosby, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Georgia, says prosecutors will have no comment on the case. Officials with the FBI also declined to comment.

The unusual story, which began in the fall of 1991, is detailed in federal court records in Atlanta and in Grossman's own courtroom

testimony in October. Grossman was 44 years old

and facing a possible 40-year prison term on Dec. 3, 1991, when he agreed to plead guilty to launder ing the money of clients from Thailand and to trafficking in the drug Dilaudid. Under the agree ment, signed by Grossman and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Moye, federal prosecutors could seek a re duction in Grossman's prison sen tence at a later date if he cooper ated with the government.

However, the deal wasn't pre sented to a federal judge until May

23, 1996. In the meantime, the FBI enlisted the help of Grossman, who speaks fluent Chinese, in its inves tigation of the Hip Sing Associa tion, which evolved from a century old Chinese secret society. The

operation was called "High-Buy" and Grossman became a key player, gathering evidence of money laun dering and gambling, according to his October testimony.

The FBI recorded more than 400 tapes of conversations Gross man had with members of the asso ciation. Faced with such evidence, 28 people in Hip Sing pleaded guil ty. But two defendants opted for a trial last October.

The case involved Ah Chu "Ted dy" Chan, a former client of Gross man's, and Wing Kim "Sase" Lee, a leader in Hip Sing. The Atlanta fed eral jury ultimately found Lee guilty of one count of gambling and acquitted him of money-laundering charges. Chan was convicted of two

36 ABA JOURNAL / MAY 1997 ABAJAAMI L.CHAPPELL

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:33:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

counts of money laundering and one count of gambling, but was ac quitted on another count of money laundering.

During the trial before U.S. District Judge Frank Hull, the con troversial facts about Grossman's role in the operation and his contin ued law practice came to light.

On cross-examination by At lanta criminal defense attorney Steve Sadow, who represented Lee, Grossman admitted that the FBI paid him $118,000 in cash and al lowed him to keep profits from the

money-laundering scheme during the four-year operation. He also testified that the FBI reimbursed him for some unusual expenses.

"He got many other perks from the FBI," Sadow told the ABA Jour nal. "The FBI even paid for him to have a prostitute one evening and told him to put the $120 expense under the category of meals."

After Grossman admitted at the trial that he had continued to prac tice law, Judge Hull blasted prosecu tors for allowing it to happen, and bar officials expressed outrage.

Protection for Clients at Issue "This case is of serious concern

to us," says Linda Klein, president elect of the Georgia bar. She says she realizes that law enforcement officials have to weigh the need to protect the public from criminal ac tivity with the need to protect peo ple from lawyers who violate the rules of professional conduct. But she wonders whether the decision was correct in this case.

"I'm not sure how serious this criminal activity [by Hip Sing] was, but I know that there is enormous harm that one bad lawyer can do to the public," she says.

Hofstra's Freedman says law yers should be concerned about the government turning a lawyer into an informant against a client. In fact, the Justice Department previ ously has had rules prohibiting lawyers, ministers and journalists from being used in such a manner.

"This case rocks our system of justice at its very foundation," says Freedman. "The primary duty of a lawyer is to establish the trust of the client. But if the client worries that the attorney is actually an agent for the government, as long as there is that fear, how can we expect clients to trust their lawyers? This case should shock and horrify every mem her of the nrntessinn

"

Authority on Employment Law.

Authority. Expert authors such as LexK. Larson. And complete coverage on both federal and state levels. The analysis and guidance you need to practice Employment law with complete confidence. Contact your Matthew Bender MATTHEW 6 BENDER representative or call 1-800-223 -1940. with the & ea umds ? Law

http:/?www. bender.com

Circle 10 on Reader Service Card

THE FINE PRINT OFFERS YOU A

RESOURCE ABA Journal classifieds

feature employment positions, over

one hundred expert witnesses, plus a variety of

other services. The most effective way to

reach nearly 80% of attorneys in the U.S.

It's time to take a look at

THE FINE PRINT Every month in

The ABA Journal

For information on listing your services in

The ABA Journal classified ads call

(312) 988-5998

al Starts

Improve You* litigation Skills With ?tletei!!, Civil Objection!!

Circle 78 on Reader Service Card

ABA JOURNAL / MAY 1997 37

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:33:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions