Weiss Lawyer Responds to Law Blog Posts on Support Letters

[WSJ_law_blog]

Editor’s Note: In the past week, this blog posted about letters in support of plaintiffs lawyer Melvyn Weiss in anticipation of his sentencing, scheduled for Monday in Los Angeles. See the posts here and here. One of Mr. Weiss’s lawyers, Kenneth White, sent a letter in response to the posts. The letter appears below.

This Firm represents Mel Weiss in connection with the prosecution in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I write in response to your posts of May 23, 2008 and May 27, 2008 on the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog regarding his sentencing position papers.

Frankly, the posts do not demonstrate the fairness and professionalism that The Wall Street Journal is known for. You report accurately that more than 275 people saw fit to write to Judge Walter in support of Mr. Weiss. But your selective description of the letters seems calculated to belittle Mr. Weiss’s supporters and to sensationalize his position and their support, not to describe that support fairly. By choosing to highlight two isolated references to minor instances of kindness — one related to a watch, another to a pair of boots — you clearly seek to portray the testimonials as a whole as banal or comical. A fair reading of the letters would not permit that interpretation. You could have chosen to emphasize Harvard Law School professor Arthur Miller’s comments about how Mr. Weiss’s efforts improved access to justice for the poor, or Judge Stanley Sporkin’s comments about how Mr. Weiss’s efforts were an essential supplement to inadequate SEC regulatory activities. Those comments, or many others contained in the more than 275 letters, would have far more fairly characterized the sort of support Mr. Weiss enjoys. Your emphasis on the boots and the watch appears calculated to encourage ridicule instead — precisely the sort of ridicule you drew in comments to your posts. I note that your posts have also drawn hostility and even overt prejudice — such as the commenter who describes Mr. Weiss as a “Holocaust industry shyster.” That is the forseeable result of your chosen spin.

Though your emphasis has been unfair and demeaning, it is not too late to remedy that injustice. Please consider a supplemental post highlighting some of the other letters that more fairly represnt Mr. Weiss’s support.

Sincerely,
Kenneth P. White
For Brown & White LLP