Madoff's Lawyer

This will surely make clients happy the world over, but apparently one of Bernie Madoff's victims was the guy now representing him in his criminal case, .i.e., he did it to his own lawyer. But isn't there something legalethicsy about representing a client with whom you are so deeply involved? My friend Rex, who knows a thousand times more about these things than I do, says maybe so. "Yes," says Rex, "there could be an issue. His counsel would have to consider both objectively and subjectively whether the financial harm done to him might compromise his ability to vigorously (within the bounds of the law) represent Madoff."

That's the way I remember it. In my line of work, I'm more likely to see it in a case where the lawyer is representing a small business of which he is also a major shareholder. In that case, it seems not so much ethically questionable as just terminally foolish. Recall the adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. The point is that one thing you need out of a lawyer is clear-sighted detachment, which is the last thing you can provide when you have your own skin in the game.

More questions. Is this guy doing it on the come? If not, how is he getting paid? Is it all contingency?*

Question, what is the difference between a lawyer and a rooster. A rooster clucks defiance, oh yuk yuk.

*Joke. It's a no-no to take a criminal case on a contingent fee. Though heaven knows plenty of people do it in practice, taking a case where they are not sure they're going to get paid.

Update: Per the Wall Street Journal, the lawyer says he has never been an investor with Madoff. But: "I'm not going to talk about my family members."