Edwards gave loan to a federal judge

[Freddie Stubbs]

Conflict issue arose as senator’s spouse played role in case

By Geoff Earle


In 1994, when Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) was still the biggest tort lawyer in North Carolina, he lent $30,000 to a federal bankruptcy judge who was then overseeing a case on which Edwards’s wife, Elizabeth, did much of the legal work. The judge, J. Rich Leonard, is a longtime friend of Edwards’s.

Edwards, who won election to the Senate in 1998, did no business in Leonard’s courtroom. But in 1999, Leonard approved a $1 million contingency fee for Nicholls & Crampton, the law firm where Elizabeth Edwards was an associate and working on the case. She had left the firm in 1996, three years before the parties settled and the fee was actually awarded. She has said she received no benefits from the award.

Subsequently, Edwards supported Leonard’s unsuccessful efforts to move up the federal judicial ladder.

Leonard denied that the loan posed any kind of a conflict of interest. “I couldn’t imagine a circumstance under which he would have come into a bankruptcy court,” he said.

more: http://www.thehill.com/news/030204/edwards.aspx

[WI_DEM]

1. amazing how the negative stories about Edwards come out

but hardly any scrutiny of the front runner. Unlike the scrutiny that the previous front runner endured. I wonder why the media is being so protective of this front runner?

on edit:
actually I do think the media is waiting to do a job on Kerry once he gets the nomination locked up. While they seem to want Kerry as the democratic nominee the one they really want is Bush and we can expect the whores to do his bidding.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. This front runner has been a Senator for YEARS

If there's new dirt to sling at Kerry, I'll be very surprised. Dean, however, was up in Vermont with no one paying any attention to him for years and Edwards is a relative newcomer. It's not being protective, they've just already slung just about everything at him. Need help? Refer to the high profile Kerry/Weld Senate battle back a few years ago.

[sadiesworld]

4. "hardly any scrutiny of the front runner"

Huh? Did I just dream all those stories about campaign contributions, votes against weapons systems, flip-flops, an intern problem, etc. This is probably the first negative story I've heard about Edwards.

[JI7]

11. yup, remember the board during the intern thing

and that was just a rumor. even cspan started their show after drudge reported on it even though there was no proof. and kerry was asked about it and people insisted he didn't really deny it and other crap. even after the woman involved herself denied it some people still still claim it's true.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Maybe they haven't found any dirt on him

You aren't suggesting that they just make up stuff to make him to look bad just to be 'fair,' are you?

[BeyondGeography]

2. Stinky, stinky, stinky

Judge gets loan, Liz 's firm gets million-dollar fee.

Sounds like Two Americas to me.

[SaddenedDem]

5. Perhaps you missed this part

The loan was in 1999 3 years after Edwards' wife left the firm!

[BeyondGeography]

9. The loan was in 1994 (lead sentence).

The $1 million fee came in 1999, three years after Liz left the firm.

So the loan pre-dated the fee. And you're naive if you think Edwards doesn't look at that situation and say that judge is going to come in handy one day (I gave him a loan) and that firm owes me BIG TIME (that judge gave them a $1 million fee).

I'm sure Liz can go back to work there any time she wants.

It's all part of that Two Americas deal. Do Ma and Pa Kettle have options like that?

Didn't think so.

[Edwards4President]

10. Unlikely that a judge can "come in handy" after receiving a loan

The story makes clear that there was little if any likelihood that Edwards would ever appear in Leonard's courtroom. So at the time the loan was made, there was absolutely no conflict of interest. And, if it ever came to pass that Edwards did have a case before Leonard - a highly unlikely scenario - there would have been a clear conflict of interest that would have required Leonard to recuse himself.

Also, the story notes that Leonard ruled against Mrs. Edwards law firm's client, but he was reversed on appeal.

Moreover, Judge Leonard didn't "give" the firm a fee. He awarded them a fee based upon statutory requirements set up in the bankruptcy laws for the work they did. In fact, he REDUCED the fee that they were to have received by 20%.

And, yes, Elizabeth (not Liz) can probably go back any time she wants. But she gave up practicing law and hasn't done so in eight years, so that's unlikely. And even if she did, she still does not benefit from the fee. Using that line of reasoning, that would mean she couldn't go to work for any firm that earned an attorneys' fee in any case Judge Leonard was ever involved in - which probably would preclude her from ever practicing her specialty in the state of North Carolina.

This is the kind of thing that might sound bad on first blush, but in reality, is perfectly on the up and up.

There is no there there.

[BeyondGeography]

12. I guess the loan was made out of the goodness

of his heart.

Look, John Edwards has friends and interests all over the place. He doesn't need to be directly involved with the judge to reap benefits from this loan. It's about cultivating friends so, for example, when the time comes, trial lawyers will pay half the freight of your presidential campaign.

OR: A friend has a case in front of said judge. The friend's law firm has bundled $2K contributions to Edwards. Edwards makes a behind-the-scenes contact with the judge putting a good word in for his friend.

Judge rules in favor of Edwards' friend. Horrors! Is that the way the world really works! You don't read about it in the newspapers...

Come to think of it: Why should lawyers even be allowed to loan money to judges?

[Edwards4President]

14. Edwards and Leonard are very close friends . . .

According to the story, they had been close friends since they both clerked together shortly after law school. They and their sons climbed Mt. Kilamanjaro together. So yes, I believe that he made the loan out of the goodness of his heart. That's what friends do.

And there is no evidence whatever that Edwards ever "made a behind the scenes contact with a judge to put in a good word for his friend" so your hypothetical is not only fantasy, it is unfair since one can make such suppositions about any of the candidates if we can just make things up about them.

Now, if you want to argue that it should be illegal for lawyers to lend money to judges, that's a different matter. But it's not illegal. Neither of them did anything wrong, this was fully disclosed in both of their financial disclosures. All indications point to Judge Leonard being completely fair and above board in the case involving Elizabeth Edwards' firm - in fact, he ruled against their client and substantially reduced their fee to a figure below the going rate.

You're seeing boogeymen where none exist.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Edwards is no ordinary lawyer, he's running for President

There's the law, and there's appearances. That the judge also happens to be his friend opens a whole other can of worms. Edwards has lots of friends. How many other friends got loans of $30k?

If the answer is "none," do we have a problem?

And there's still the fact of his wife's ex-employer getting a $1 million fee. Did the loan have anything to do with that? I can't see that it did. But, here Edwards is, playing defense and having to explain the situation. He's in a compromised position. It's not fatal by any means, but it's hardly a selling point either.

[Edwards4President]

16. He wasn't runnng for president - or even in politics

when he made the loan.

The loan was paid back before he became a senator. Are you saying that no one who has ever lent money to a friend (not a highly unusual occurrence, especially when one is a millionaire) must be corrupt and, therefore, should be smeared if he ever enters elective politics?

As for your question about what other loans Edwards has made, you can check his public financial statements. But I think that's irrelevant, unless you believe that the only way a loan to one of his best friends was not corrupt was if he was a regular loan factory to all of his friends.

This information has been public for years. The Jesse Helms machine was fully aware of it when he ran against Faircloth and they have known it ever since. It hasn't been used against him because everyone knows there's nothing to it.

He is not in a compromised position. He made a loan to a friend. The loan was paid back with interest. It's fully public. There is absolutely no evidence that this benefited Edwards in any way - other than the market rate interest he was paid for the loan. Lots of fluff - no there.

[BeyondGeography]

17. He was a lawyer, his "friend" was a judge

and, presumably, he had political ambitions in 1994 and knew his behavior would be seen in a different light one day.

But, I understand, you're an Edwards partisan and you see the best side of every story that relates to him.

[Edwards4President]

18. There is no indication he had political ambitions in 1994 . . .

But you're right. I am an Edwards partisan and tend to see things in the light more favorable to him. But I also understand the legal system, legal and judicial ethics and relationships and know that is not unusual for lawyers and judges to be friends, especially those who became friends long before they assume their later roles in life. And I don't see anything fishy about Edwards giving a loan to a friend - a loan that was paid back in full and seems to have absolutely no influence on anything the judge later did.

It should also be noted that Judge Leonard, while a federal judge, is a bankruptcy judge, which is a different position. He is not appointed for life by the president but for a temporary term by a panel of federal judges who determine his fitness to serve. Judge Leonard has been reappointed by mostly Republican judges over the years who have never raised a question about his ethics, his rulings or his relationship with Edwards.

Using the argument you and others are making would mean that lawyers and even aspiring lawyers could not be friends or lend each other money since it's always possible that, somewhere down the line, one of them might become a judge and another might become a politician and it would look bad sometime in the future. I just don't think that comports with reality.

Everything I see here appears to be on the up and up.

[PATRICK]

7. Easy explanation

After having come up dry in Whitewater, they are not too enthusiastic about digging into an honest man's past. Apparently this means there is no big deal in Edwards past, but if there is better stuff than this weak tea just posted you can bet they will save that molehill as a surprise should Edwards get the Presidency or simply nominated.

Kerry as with Gephardt has been under the microscope all along. Assorted lies or exaggerations will come out in timely fashion but the focus will be on big memes and policy contradictions. Of course the press never sees the elephant of dirt, woolly mammoth conflict of interest, shady past and criminality on the GOP side during these "virtuous" hunts of pious scrutiny.

[Thrill]

8. Kerry has seen everything

thrown at him. Look at how many elections he has been in. There is nothing new out there against him. They tried the affair crap. But it had no legs. You know stuff was going to come out on Edwards. He was too clean for a politician.

[Armstead]

13. Is it just a coincidence this came out today, of all days?

I sure hope so.