It all depends on what his strategy is in representing his client. In some cases, the attorney will point the finger at another defendant, but in other cases it makes more sense to argue that no one did anything wrong, and that everyone had good intentions.

Posted by larryB | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 9:59 am

Larry's right. It may be that these defendants are all pretty much in the same boat, and that if one's guilty, it'd be hard to say that they all aren't. And it might be easier to say that the whole scheme wasn't improper (or at least not fraudulant), instead of saying that the scheme was problematic, but that an individual client didn't have an improper role.

Posted by CP | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 3:39 pm

Terri Webster is a little fish and I am having a hard time understanding why she is getting prosecuted while idiots like McGrory walk free (and get 6 figure pensions). Webster may or may not be guilty of a crime, but it gets my blood boiling when little fish get caught up while the big fish swims free.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 9, 2008 7:22 pm

BBH -- I agree!

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 11, 2008 6:39 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.