On information and belief, the firm was given a free pass in exchange for implicitly agreeing that it would walk away from a claim on plaintiffs seized assets, allowing the government to claim a large forfeiture. Paragraph 153 Peridago v Adams and Reese (civil RICO)
Well, on that information and total disbelief that anyone would steal $30,000,000 and not spend a dime, there’s got to be a lot more to the story for Adams and Reese to allow the government to keep it.
Indications are the $30,000,000 is the talk-of-the-town, again. Perdigao’s claim he was authorized by Adams & Reese to endorse and deposit checks is gaining some traction with the filing of the Complaint (posted under Legal on the left sidebar)
According to the story in the ABA Journal posted on SLABBED yesterday, its unusual for a lawyer stealing money to just bank the money.
“Usually, we don’t find that the lawyer just squirrels the money away,” says Timothy J. O’Sullivan, executive director and counsel of the New York Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.
In that light, the Adams and Reese claim quoted in the ABA article sounds more like an excuse than a reason.
Before being asked to leave Adams and Reese, Perdigao often worked until 10 p.m. The work was excellent, Adams says, and Perdigao’s annual billable hours were always within a 2,000-hour range. According to Adams, Perdigao spent little if any of the money he allegedly stole.
“That’s why he still has it all,” Adams adds. “He wasn’t married, lived in a modest house, drove an old car—he had no conspicuous lifestyle at all.”
If this inconspicuous lifestyle included an inconspicuous gathering of documentation – and Peridago’s lawyer has said there’s evidence to back up the claims – it’s going to be a long, hot summer and that $30,000,000 won’t be cooling off any time soon.