Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (4248)	8/20/2002 2:46:39 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Lawyers proud of role at Enron Firm touts expert legal work despite corporate debacle By MARY FLOOD The Houston Chronicle Aug. 16, 2002, 9:48PM Expertise is expertise, even if it was gained doing work for a company whose name has become synonymous with corporate excess and corruption. On its Web site, the prominent Houston law firm Vinson & Elkins is still touting the work it did for Enron, even some of the most controversial. Indeed, it seems to be bragging about its role in forming the off-balance-sheet partnerships that got Enron and its auditors -- and its lawyers -- in so much legal trouble. At www.velaw.com, under the section titled "Structured Finance," the lawyers tout work on "offshore special purpose entities." Though the site doesn't identify the corporate client, it certainly sounds like some of the controversial Enron partnerships. Harry Reasoner, a partner and spokesman for the law firm, acknowledges that some Enron work is included among its Web promotions. "My guess is that it's still up there because of the kind of inertia that exists on a Web site like this," he said. The firm once counted Enron as its largest client. In 2001, Vinson & Elkins billed Enron $36 million -- more than 7 percent of the firm's revenue. But Reasoner said Vinson & Elkins did nothing illegal and performed duties for Enron professionally, so there's no reason not to tout the expertise. The kind of work it did for Enron, he said, is general practice and the firm has done similar financing structures for a broad spectrum of companies. Vinson & Elkins has been attacked for its work for Enron by Congress and a special panel of the Enron board of directors, which reported the firm "should have brought a stronger, more objective and more critical voice to the disclosure process." The report said Vinson & Elkins gave legal advice on the formation or funding of several off-the-book partnerships, including Chewco, LJM2, Jedi and the Raptors. It adds that all were bad deals for Enron, wrongfully enriched a few employees and amounted to little more than accounting devices used to hide debt and inflate revenues. But Reasoner noted the firm had advised against some aspects of those deals. Though Vinson & Elkins was Enron's chief outside counsel, the company employed many other firms all over the country. And more than a few include that work in their online material, such as Houston's Bracewell & Patterson and New York-based Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. At Bracewell, for example, the biography of lawyer Ileana Blanco lists her work for Enron on several energy lawsuits and the fact that she gave a seminar in May 2001 on legal ethics for Enron's in-house lawyers. "My representation of Enron was a very positive experience," Blanco said. "I dealt with very good lawyers there. It wouldn't have occurred to me to take it off." But other firms, like New York-based Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy have removed a reference to controversial Enron work. As recently as six months ago, Milbank noted its work on creating Enron's Osprey Trust, an entity that funded some of the partnerships being closely scrutinized now by prosecutors and regulators. Now, the notation is gone. A Milbank spokeswoman said it was likely removed because it was an old reference. The firm tries to keep its Web site up to date, she said. Steve Berman, the Seattle lawyer serving as lead counsel on the Enron employee class-action lawsuit that accuses Vinson & Elkins of racketeering, said the lawsuit itself quotes some of the the firm's Web site language that is still up today -- a fact first reported by Bloomberg News. "Vinson & Elkins was denying responsibility, yet the Web site bragged that they were at the epicenter of the off-balance-sheet financial structures," Berman said. He said the mention of the Web site language in the lawsuit likely left the Houston firm in a quandary -- taking it down would be damning, but so is leaving it up. Mike Androvett, a Dallas-based publicist for lawyers, said he admires the decision by Vinson & Elkins, Blanco and others who didn't change their Web sites. "I would advise that if they were proud of their work they should put it up there. Then their clients will know this is a firm that will stand by them," Androvett said. "Truth can be an unbelievable strategic initiative." chron.com