Feds Ask Judge To Review Actions of Defense Attorney

Feds ask judge to review defense lawyer in hip hop mogul drug case
The New York Post by Mitchel Maddux  -  July 12, 2011

Federal prosecutors say a defense attorney for hip hop music producer James Rosemond served as "house counsel" for the rapper's alleged cocaine empire.

The feds say Jeffery Lichtman's involvement in defending the rap producer in his upcoming drug distribution trial may pose potential conflicts of interest and asked a Brooklyn federal judge to review the matter.  However, the feds make no allegations of any criminal wrongdoing .  Prosecutors say the attorney accepted approximately $150,000 in cash from Rosemond to pay for legal services, but the feds acknowledge that the defense attorney filled out required IRS forms.  Lichtman countered that transaction was above board - he deposited money in a bank and submitted required government documents.  The attorney also denied a suggestion that he tried to find out if a man allegedly involved in the cocaine trafficking enterprise was cooperating with the feds.  Prosecutors also pointed out that Lichtman represented others charged in the coke case, which they say creates a conflict of interest - although the defense attorney disagreed.  Lichtman, a prominent Manhattan defense lawyer, insisted that he's done nothing wrong and offered to take a lie detector case.  He charged that the feds have an ulterior motive in filing the letter with Judge John Gleeson.  "This is a transparent and desperate attempt to get me off a case," Lichtman said.  Shortly before Rosemond's arrest last month, a man serving life in prison claimed that the music producer was involved in an attempt to kill rapper Tupac Shakur.  Dexter Isaac claimed he shot Tupac in 1994 at the direction of Rosemond during the bloody East-West war that then defined hip-hop culture.  In a statement posted on AllHipHop.com, Isaac apologized for the infamous near-fatal attack.  Tupac -- who was born in East Harlem but made his career in Northern California -- survived the attack, only to be shot dead on Sept. 13, 1996, in Las Vegas.  Lichtman has said that Issac is simply a convicted killer who is spinning a tale.  mmaddux@nypost.com


-------- RELATED STORY:


U.S. Tries to Remove Hip-Hop Mogul's Counsel in Drug Case
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise  -  July 13, 2011

The Eastern District U.S. Attorney's Office did not accuse Jeffrey Lichtman of engaging in any of the crimes charged against his client, but asked Judge John Gleeson to bar him as James Rosemond's lawyer based on Mr. Lichtman's multiple conflicting prior representations, his role as a "critical link" in his client's scheme to block a witness from cooperating and his acceptance of $150,000 in cash as fees.

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn moved Monday to kick one of New York's most prominent defense lawyers off the case of a hip-hop mogul who is accused of operating a $10 million-a-year bi-coastal cocaine operation.  The Eastern District U.S. Attorney's Office claims that Jeffrey Lichtman was house counsel to a drug-trafficking enterprise run by James Rosemond, whose talent management company represents Game and other well-known hip-hop artists.  Mr. Lichtman, in an interview, brushed off the government's motion as an "almost laughable" attempt to tar him with wrongdoing "for ethical and legal" steps he had taken to defend Mr. Rosemond.  In seeking Mr. Lichtman's removal for conflicts of interest, prosecutors also described him as a "critical link" in Mr. Rosemond's scheme to block a witness from cooperating with the government.  The U.S. in United States v. Rosemond, 11-cr-424, did not accuse Mr. Lichtman of engaging in any of the crimes charged against Mr. Rosemond, including obstruction of justice, which would have required Judge John Gleeson, who presides over the case against Mr. Rosemond and four other defendants, to disqualify Mr. Lichtman.  Instead, citing multiple conflicting prior representations, including Mr. Lichtman's alleged role as house counsel, his factual knowledge relating to the obstruction of justice count against his client and his acceptance of $150,000 in cash as fees, prosecutors asked Judge Gleeson to bar him as Mr. Rosemond's lawyer.

Criminal law experts said Judge Gleeson has broad discretion in deciding whether Mr. Lichtman should be disqualified if his continued representation threatens the integrity of the trial process.  Without such a ruling by the judge, Mr. Rosemond would be able to keep Mr. Lichtman as his lawyer by waiving any conflict.  The U.S. skated closest to accusing Mr. Lichtman of a crime in its detailed description of the evidence that Mr. Rosemond sought to block a witness from cooperating with the government. The witness was identified only as confidential witness CW-3.  CW-3, after being arrested in California on charges of supplying cocaine to Mr. Rosemond's organization in summer 2010, pleaded guilty. He eventually told prosecutors that he had sold Mr. Rosemond's operation more than 100 kilograms of cocaine, some of which Mr. Rosemond had personally ordered.  The U.S. contends that in the past four years, the group has distributed more than 1,000 kilograms of cocaine, generating millions of dollars in revenues.  After CW-3 was brought to the Eastern District of New York, another top-level operative in the organization, who subsequently also became an informant, arranged for CW-3 to be represented by an unidentified New York City defense lawyer, according to the government. In December 2010, CW-3, represented by the lawyer, decided to cooperate and met with prosecutors.  On Dec. 17, CW-1, who had not yet flipped, met with the New York City lawyer and told him that Mr. Rosemond was aware that CW-3 was cooperating and asked the lawyer to withdraw. When the lawyer balked, CW-1 showed him the notes he had made of the meeting that the lawyer and CW-3 had with prosecutors, according to the letter the prosecutors submitted to Judge Gleeson asking for Mr. Lichtman's removal.

The New York City attorney, who told prosecutors he "feared for his safety," said that the only person he had shown his notes to was a lawyer who had represented CW-3 in California before he was brought to New York, according to the letter that was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carolyn Pokorney and Todd Kaminsky.  On Dec. 18 and 19, first Mr. Lichtman's investigator alone and then Mr. Lichtman with his investigator met with CW-3, who was incarcerated, and asked him questions about his cooperation. At the same time, according to the prosecution's letter, Mr. Rosemond called CW-3's wife and told her that he was upset that her husband was cooperating.  It is "reasonable to infer" that these events, occurring over three days starting with the disclosure of the New York City lawyer's notes of the meeting with prosecutors, "are probative of Rosemond's scheme to prevent CW-3 from cooperating," the Eastern District prosecutors stated in the letter.  The prosecutors added that Mr. Lichtman's contact with CW-3 was "a critical link in the chain of events charged in the obstruction-of-justice count." But the prosecutors acknowledged that they had no evidence Mr. Lichtman was aware of his client's actions.  Nonetheless, they argued that disqualification was required because Mr. Lichtman could be called as a witness with personal knowledge underlying the obstruction-of-justice charge.

Similarly, the prosecutors wrote, Mr. Lichtman's acceptance of $150,000 in cash and his representation of 10 individuals, including Mr. Rosemond, as either co-defendants in the current prosecution or gang members in prior prosecutions, meant the lawyer had personal knowledge of the scope of the criminal enterprise, a critical element of a racketeering prosecution.  Mr. Lichtman countered that the government was pillorying him for doing precisely what he is ethically required to do.  "Every lawyer has an ethical obligation to interview witnesses," he said.  Similarly, he said, the government's information about Mr. Rosemond's payment of fees in cash only came out because he had properly completed tax forms required whenever an individual receives more than $10,000 in cash.  "What house counsel who is trying to protect the 'house' is going to fill out the tax form," he said. "It's like the Salem witch trials. If I float they hang me; if I sink, I'm dead."  Mr. Lichtman, a 1990 graduate of Duke University School of Law, has had a number of high-profile clients since first opening his own office in 1999.  In 2005, he succeeded in derailing a Southern District prosecution of John A. Gotti, the scion of the Gambino crime family. A jury acquitted Mr. Gotti, known as "Junior," on one count and hung on three others in a case that included charges involving the kidnapping and shooting of Guardian Angels founder and radio talk host Curtis Sliwa.  Mr. Lichtman, 46, also won the freedom of a man ho had been sentenced to prison for 27 years in New Jersey for sexually assaulting four alleged victims. He has also represented a retired New York City police detective on charges of robbing drug dealers and has represented AIG executives named in a probe of the insurance industry by the New York attorney general.  Before setting out on his own, Mr. Lichtman spent six years working with Gerald Shargel, who himself has had many high-profile clients, including Mr. Gotti's father, John J. Gotti.  Daniel Wise can be contacted at dwise@alm.com.