Feds Try To Thwart Former Glaxo Lawyer’s Defense
25 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 9th, 2011 // 11:08 am
Three months ago, former GlaxoSmithKline attorney Lauren Stevens was indicted for allegedly obstructing an FDA probe into off-label marketing of Wellbutrin SR. More recently, she filed an interesting motion indicating she will argue in court that King & Spalding, a major law firm that works for Glaxo, had provided her with advice while she was employed by the drugmaker (see here and here).
The motion raised the delicious spectacle of a courtroom filled with attorneys all pointing fingers at one another (a situation ripe for a sitcom, perhaps). Not surprisingly, the feds indicated they would attempt to prevent Stevens from mounting a defense that lays blame on other lawyers - whether they were Glaxo staffers or outside counsel. As far as the feds are concerned, Stevens is the culprit. And this must make Glaxo counsel - and the King & Spalding partners - feel somewhat relieved.
True to their word, the feds last week filed such a motion to derail her strategy. They argue that allowing Stevens to use this defense would be confusing because the lawyers with whom she conferred back in the day would, effectively, be asked to offer opinions, not actual expert testimony. And who might be confused by such a notion? The jury, according to the feds.
Specifically, the “government anticipates” Stevens may call some of these lawyers to testify about whether they believed Glaxo responses to the FDA probe were “appropriate or fair and not false and misleading, based upon what they knew then” and whether they continue to hold that view. They may also be asked to offer opinions on their “own good faith” in helping to compile the Glaxo responses. In their motion, the feds argue that, “unless the witness expressed the particular opinion at issue to the defendant at the time, however, such opinion testimony is not relevant.”
What else might confuse the jury? The feds write that it remains unclear whether Stevens will claim the Glaxo and King & Spalding lawyers actually represented her when she responded to the FDA, or that they gave her personal advice - or represented both her and the drugmaker. “It is also unclear whether she will contend that she was acting as client or as counsel when she was leading the effort to respond to the FDA, and signing the letters from GSK to the FDA. Nor is it clear what legal advice she purports to have received, let alone how such advice could be reasonable or how she could have reasonably relied on it,” the feds complain.
In any event, the feds argue Stevens did not provide King & Spalding with “all relevant facts” while she prepared the Glaxo responses to the FDA and so “she is, therefore, not entitled to assert the defense of reliance on counsel,” anyway (you can read the motion here). To many, this may appear to be inside baseball, but as noted, if the feds lose their argument, Stevens may yet get a chance to blame lawyers at Glaxo and its high-priced law firm for the responses to the FDA. This reminds us that there is a reason some expressions become a cliche, because that might just open a Pandora’s Box. The trial, by the way, has been postponed until April 4.
industry insider
As a doctor, I love lawyer jokes. Pardon if I’ve told before: Two lawyers die and go to Heaven. Arriving at the Pearly Gates, St. Peter learns their occupation and orders them to the back of the line. After many hours of impatiently waiting, they look up to see a tall elederly gentleman with a flowing white beard and a stethoscope around his neck confidently stride past them to the front of the line, and St. Peter allows the gentleman into heaven with no questions asked. Irritated, one of the lawyers asks St. Peter “why did you let that doctor walk straight on through the gates, no questions asked?” St. Peter replied to him , “oh, you fellows are mistaken. That was not a doctor. That was God; sometimes he just thinks he’s a doctor”.
Salient point
Not sure how unusual it is for someone who has received advice from outside counsel to file a motion like this, even if that person is an att’y herself. Most in-house att’y’s never see the inside of a courtroom, which is why outside counsel gets hired in the first place. She may have received poor advice, or advice that was motivated to protect GSK’s interests instead of her own.
Certainly, given the circumstances, it’s a motion worth filing for her. The reasons for the feds opposing it are just as clear. Everyone’s just playing their hands here, ridiculous as it may look.
Pharma insider
Another stalling technique by Ms. Stevens…..and frankly, the only game she has left. HOWEVER, I think it will be difficult for her, as an attorney, to get any sympathy and buy-in as to bad legal advice. As the old cliche says, “You do the crime - you should do the time”. We need to start making examples of some of these narcissistic white-collar criminals.
Insider
I think this is a good idea to go after the lawyers. I was wondering why they did not do it in some of the other cases where the federal judge said there were all sorts of criminal activity that the American people would like prosecuted. Hopefully they are going to start getting more agressive as capitalism is dependent on providing useful services and not covering up massive fraud.
industry insider
Agree with all. The only time a lawyer posted on this thread, he/she laughably wanted to take the discussion off line concerning kawyer Stevens. Just like lawyers, always talking hush “off the record”, “privileged” stuff.
Reality
All the legal snakes will be scurrying to get under their own rocks and avoid being caught. Should be a fun trial!
Paul
I worked at a prior version of GSK and I know many people who worked in commercial roles there. You may be surprised that commercial types, like myself, are often at odds with legal types. I do not know Ms. Stevens, but I do know people who know her and I have never heard a single bad word about her. Rather she is descibed as an honest person who provides good lawyerly advice to help people think though the business risks and regulations. She was representing her client and got the best advice that she could so she could do her job well. I think we should be careful about smudging her integrity.
industry insider
There are condemned prisoners on death row, who, like Ms Stevens allegedley received “bad legal advice”. That still doesn’t mean they are innocent.
Websters defined “advice” as follows:
“recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct”.
I see nothing in the above definition about a gun being held to Ms Stevens’ head. More likely Ms. Stevens was bound by Golden handcuffs, defined as:
“a high financial incentive given to an employee to prevent an employee from leaving the company. It also prevents an employee from receiving equal remuneration from elsewhere. An employee is obliged to stay in the company even if it is unpleasant or unrewarding”.
That’s probably one reason why she conspired to obstruct a Federal investigation. As a Level 14 first time offender she should get at least 15 years in Federal prison according to Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines
Christopher
insider - pure speculation and assumption on your part. I agree with Paul.
Salient point
As a lawyer, the burden of proof for her to demonstrate inadequate counsel would be higher than a lay person & anything illegal or unethical would not be covered. But she’s still entitled to bring this motion.
I have to say that this post quotes very liberally from the fed’s response, which of course reflects only one side of the story.
industry insider
Sorry, Christopher and Paul. While a defense lawyer has a duty to to represent her client even if she knows the client is guilty, the same obligation does not apply to corporate in-house lawyers, and does not exculpate them from legal vulnerability. As I alluded to in another thread, the two simplest words in the english language are “I resign”, unless of course you are shackled by the golden handcuffs (see above) which probably clouded Ms. Steven’s judgement. I give her the benefit of the doubt on that point. My lawyer friends tell me that the Federal bar for proving Obstruction of Justice as it relates to commercial fraud (i.e. promotion of off label marketing) is set pretty low. Therefore, I think Stevens will cop a plea and do some time.
Since she is a North Carolina resident, she will hopefully be able to join Bernie Madoff in her new digs at Butner, NC Federal Prison. On the positive side, she’ll probably get out before old Bernie does in 2139.
harpy
I imagine what the feds really want is for her to flip on the execs. that is most likely the deal being offered. and that’s why she’s trying this desperation defense. I hope they’re paying her well.
industry insider
Harpy, the code of silence among industry executives is stronger than among the Cosa Nostra. I would know. I’ve been an industry executive and I live in New Jersey, with previous ties to Chicago.
Coming to Roost
To Chris and Paul:
L. Stevens was indicted by a Grand Jury. I know I don’t have to explain what that is, or the process. However, because you have a friend of a friend who heard her pass gas once and said it smelled so wonderful, I will wait smear her after her conviction or guilty plea is in the bag!
industry insider
Spot on, Roost. Corporate greed is no different from underworld greed. In 1980, a mob boss who lived in a nearby community suddenly disappeared. His body was subsequently found dumped in the Bronx, cut up in pieces, with the pieces stuffed in garbage bags. His rectum had been stuffed with twenty dollar bills because he also thought that his you know what didn’t stink.
Lauren, take the deal if you’re smart. You’ll do time in the Martha Stewart Club Fed, planting gardens and acting as a jailhouse lawyer. At least the inmates will have a real one.
Coming to Roost
Thanks Ix2! When the facts come out Chris and Paul can have a full plate of crow.
Ms. Stevens opportunity to deal was prior to her indictment. Now that she has that in her lap, its just a matter of how long now she would like to remain incarcerated. With no cooperation and guilty of all charges she faces 60 years. At 60 years old herself, I would be willing she cops a plea deal. However as in typical GSK fashion, she will wait until the very last minute to cut a deal, and will surely face time. It is about time! Now don’t call me Shirley!
Peace Bro!
industry insider
On the other hand, once incarcerated, she could could buy a $7.00 rock hammer and tunnel her way out of prison, like Andy Dufresne in “Shawshank Redemption”. It only took him 19 years. She would still be a spry 79 years old and wouldn’t have to work at the Foodway with the other parolees.
Coming to Roost
Pressure and time! She will have plenty of that!
industry insider
She could probably also use one of these to cover up her work.
http://onechickaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/raquel-welch021b2.jpg
Coming to Roost
That was funny!
industry insider
Let’s leave some parting words with Ms. Stevens: “Salvation Lies Within”.
Coming to Roost
Hysterical!
GovtFraudLawyer
Stevens’ attorneys recently filed a motion to force the DoJ to reveal alleged co-conspirators. Wonder who they have in mind? Could it be in-house or outside counsel. This also raises questions whether more than just one lawyer was involved in the alleged criminal obstruction of justice. Obviously Stevens thinks that she alone should not be going down with the ship.
Time is on my side, yes it is!
Judge is set to rule on the motion March 25. Throwing all the legal teams for GSK in jail is probably a good start! In addition to the board of directors, CEO, CFO and so on!
Pfizer no Wiser
Yes, throw them all in jail and start a trend. The jails will be full once the ranks of pharma execs get their just deserts.