5:12 pm ET
Feb 5, 2009

Lawyers & Law Firms

From Odd to Odder: Madoff’s Lawyer Lands on Customer List

    • Why would Ira Lee Sorkin have reservations? He'll probably make more money off of the case than off of a possible recovery.

    • I once defended a chemical company in a massive toxic spill class action down in Louisiana. After years of litigation, we negotiated a settlement with a number of homeowners who lived near the spill for hundreds of millions of dollars. The night before the hearing to get the settlement approved, I was looking through the list of settling homeowners, and I was chagrined to find the name the local lawyer who was serving as co-counsel. When I confronted him with the conflict of interest, he basically shrugged it off and said he didn't think anyone would notice. I later complained to the bar about him, and he was slapped on the wrist. Only in Louisiana....

    • 5:54 -- Wouldn't one good form of revenge be to make a lot of money in fees off the case but hold back in your representation to help assure that Madoff gets convicted? Just because Sorkin will make a lot of money off the case doesn't mean he is free of conflicts.

    • Two peoples are seen busy at the same time.
      Jews busy searching for what is left of their money.
      Palestinians busy searching for what is left of their homes.

    • "Money makes a blind man see." Hmmmm... What about the future of the children innocently involved in the Madoff saga? Con amore per cienco! Leave Mr. Madoff and people like him to heaven! No matter what, each human being has a purpose in this life, and we will all have to give an account of our time spent on earth when we go for the final audit!

    • and be disqualified . conflict of interest . and sorkin is stealing money from madoof investors by using retainer paid by madoff from investors money
      ss// dr ethics

    • Query whether Madoff's fees to Sorkin aren't a preference avoidable by Madoff's other creditors. The fees are payback for lost Sorkin money; other creditors aren't getting that. In fact, to the extent that Sorkin is successful in defending Madoff, these investors are doubly screwed -- first by the preferential payment to Sorkin, then by Madoff being forced to disgorge less than he should to his other victims.

    • Hey Larry @ 2/5 7.56 PM- why don't you move into Gaza and live in harmony with your fellow jew-haters? Jackass.

    • Don't assume that the fees are being paid by B.M. It could be independent wealth of his wife's, no?

    • Doesn't anyone realize that the 'list' includes a host of names that actually had no money on deposit at the time of the collapse??

      And that some of those people, including 'enablers' miraculously withdrew their deposits shortly before the walls came down..

      Sorkin represented Avellino and Bienes in the first purported Madoff ponzi scheme back in 1992. But when asked about how he took Avellino and Bienes on as clients, Ira seems to be claiming Mad Cow..he doesn't seem to remember who introduced him at the time.

      Come on..unless Bernie made a deal to make Ira whole via another means, why would Ira represent him in this matter? Because he's an altruistic advocate that takes pride in defending down-trodden, penniless scamsters? Including ones that ripped him off?
      Ask any lawyer in NY if that's Ira's MO. Much more insightful coverage at

    • 9:23, are you talking about avoidable preferences under the Bankruptcy Code? Madoff isn't in bankruptcy, is he? If so, the fees would approved by the bankruptcy court and are also a post-petition transfer. However, I don't believe that he is in bankruptcy, so perhaps you're assuming that he will be. If so, Sorkin would likely have a defense under 547(c).

      I'm asking if you're assuming bankruptcy, because I don't believe that the NYDCL has preference avoidance (I could be wrong). Under the NYDCL, fraudulent conveyances can be avoided, but Sorkin would also probably have a defense of fair consideration.

      Can you clarify under what law you believe that the attorneys' fees might be avoidable as a preference?

    • With some assumption and rough estimates, the loss may not be that bad for Madoff's clients. The news says $50B was lost, $1B is uncovered. So $49B net is lost. Over the years, Madoff gave "good" returns to his clients. Let's just say the clients quadrupled their invested money. $49B is really only $49B/4 or $12.2B in original money. The list is 13000 lines long. Per line, the loss is $938K. It would be interesting if the list included the net worth of each line outside Madoff’s accounts. If the net worth is assumed to be $5M, $10M, $20M, or $100M, losing $938K is only a small scratch on the Mercedes.
      I only guessed, assumed to make estimations. If you have actual data, please correct my math. To the person who called me a Jackass, I gladly accept the title. I am a Jackass standing outside the fence as an Angel looking at two peoples stuck inside the fence. I see the Jews finding Madoff to be a cause celebre, and I see the Palestinians discovering Madoff to be their new found hero.

    • If you notice, Sorkin's mama's IRA was *cashed out* and *Disbursed to Sorkin's sons* long before this whole scandal shook out.

      Thus, Sorkin has a great motive to defend Madoff - as a net beneficiary of the confessed Ponzi scheme, Sorkin wants to make Madoff look as clean as possible to limit his own (unlikely) potential liability.

    • sorkin should be investigated by the incompetent receiver appointed by the sec over madooff

    • This whole case just highlights just how unjust our legal system is. Justice isn't blind, she's sitting behind a cash register. If Madoff was a inner city kid who robbed $20 from an old lady, the kid would be sitting in prison waiting for trial. Sorkin representing Madoff is just another drop in the bucket.

    • So, essentially, the Sorkin family were pure beneficiaries of Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
      They got in early, Pop benefitted, Mom benefitted, they cashed out shortly before it blew up, and then divided the proceeds between the grandkids.

      If I were the receiver in the bankruptcy I would be interested in this. Was there inquiry notice leading to the withdrawal of funds? Was there fraudulent conveyance?

    • See the 1996 movie Sleepers. Very good anyway.

    • I am anti death penalty. Though,If I were for it, This is a case where I would push it. Madoff has ruined more lives than any rapist.

    • Your article regarding a potential conflict of interest has it slightly backwards. Sorkin's family undoubtedly benefitted (potentially big) from the long-held Madoff account. [Why shouldn't the extent of the "investment" be public information by now as relevant to the conflict issue? ] Accordingly, should Madoff plead guilty or be found guilty, Sorkin's family may just have to give back the money under the clawback doctrine because any "profits" were fraudulently obtained. Sorkin thus has a personal economic interest in whether Madoff is found guilty and this could potentially affect his handling of the case regarding the scope of any Madoff guilty plea or other admissions. The larger conflict, however, is likely an ethical/legal issue that so far no one appears to be pursuing. It is not beyond question whether Sorkin, because of his prior representation of Madoff's feeder associates in 1992, knew that Madoff's operation was not on the up and up and that it could produce some interesting results for investors who could get out before the crowd. It is also not beyond suspicion that Sorkin may have initiated and overseen these family investments and may have assisted Madoff in some manner regarding potential SEC investigations. In short, there are a lot of questions raised by the Sorkin/Madoff relationship that should bring into question the propriety of Sorkin's representation of Madoff (and his wife), and I'm surprised that neither the NY Bar nor federal prosecutors are taking a position on the matter.

Add a Comment


About Law Blog



    • Law Blog on Twitter

Must Reads

Law Bureau

Top Law Stories