Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Don't you just love it? Tiffany's. Isn't it wonderful? You
Speaker 1: see what I mean? Nothing bad could have happened to
Speaker 1: you in a place like this. Isn't that I give
Speaker 1: a hoot about jeweler except diamonds, of course, Tiffany the
Speaker 1: most storied jeweler in the country. The name alone evokes
Speaker 1: images of Audrey Hepburn in a black evening gown looking
Speaker 1: into the window of the famous Fifth Avenue store in breakfast,
Speaker 1: to Tiffany's and flawless diamond engagement rings in the iconic
Speaker 1: Robin Egg Blue box. Different images are evoked by the
Speaker 1: name Costco Warehouses bulk sales of household staples and deals
Speaker 1: for members only. So happens when Costco starts selling diamond
Speaker 1: engagement rings using the word Tiffany Well. Tiffany sues for
Speaker 1: trademark infringement, and an eight year legal battle follows until
Speaker 1: this week, when Tiffany and Costco reached a settlement. My
Speaker 1: guest is intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at
Speaker 1: Captain Eugen Rosenman. Terry tell us about the legal dispute.
Speaker 1: So Costco was selling engagement rings that featured what is
Speaker 1: often referred to as a Tiffany setting, and by that
Speaker 1: they mean the diamond is raised above the ring band
Speaker 1: in sort of an attractive setting. It was something that
Speaker 1: was created by the founder of the Tiffany Shane gentleman
Speaker 1: by the name of Charles Tiffany, and so it has
Speaker 1: been known for over a hundred years as the Tiffany setting,
Speaker 1: and Costco advertised their engagement rings as featuring a Tiffany setting,
Speaker 1: and Tiffany the jewelry store of ject to that in
Speaker 1: the Bottle lawsuit back in two thousand thirteen, and Costco
Speaker 1: claimed that the word Tiffany had become a generic term.
Speaker 1: This actually went to a jury who came back with
Speaker 1: a huge verdict. Tell us about the trial judges ruling.
Speaker 1: So the judge in the district Court granted summary judgment
Speaker 1: of liability against the Costco and in favor of Tiffany,
Speaker 1: holding that the use of the Tiffany trademark constituted both
Speaker 1: trademark in infringement and counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is fairly serious finding
Speaker 1: under the Landom Act, but did not make any finding
Speaker 1: with respect to the damages for those violations of the
Speaker 1: Landom Act. So a jury trial was held specifically to
Speaker 1: determine damages. So at the start, the jury is told
Speaker 1: that Costco has already been found libel for trademark infringement
Speaker 1: and counterfeiting, an now it's up to you, the jury,
Speaker 1: to determine how they should be punished with respect of
Speaker 1: monetary damages. And that jury awarded twenty one million dollars
Speaker 1: to Tiffany or this counterfeiting and trademark infringement, it's appealed
Speaker 1: to the second Circuit, and the second Circuit reverses. Why
Speaker 1: did the second Circuit reverse? So? The Second Circuit felt
Speaker 1: that the judge had overstepped her function by granting summary judgment.
Speaker 1: The Second Circuit felt that there were genuine issues of
Speaker 1: material fact that had, as a matter of law, to
Speaker 1: be presented to the jury to decide and could not
Speaker 1: be decided by the judge. And fundamentally, what this means
Speaker 1: is the Second Circuit felt that a reasonable juror might
Speaker 1: have thought that the use of the term Tiffany referred
Speaker 1: to the setting and not to the jewelry store. In
Speaker 1: other words, that the ring did not originate from the
Speaker 1: Tiffany Jewelry store, but rather referred to the type of
Speaker 1: setting for the engagement ring, and it was up to
Speaker 1: jury therefore make the decision, and the judge overstepped her
Speaker 1: bounds by making the decision for the jury. So Tiffany
Speaker 1: has always defended its brand zealous lee. Did it surprise
Speaker 1: you that they decided to settle with Costco? It did,
Speaker 1: but the stakes were much higher on the retrial coming
Speaker 1: back from the appellate court, and that new trial in
Speaker 1: front of a jury was set fruit was coming October.
Speaker 1: At that point, it is possible that a jury could
Speaker 1: have returned a verdict in favor of Costco, which in
Speaker 1: essence meant that the term Tiffany had become descriptive. And
Speaker 1: at that point, if that finding were upheld on appeal,
Speaker 1: Tiffany's very valuable trademark would have overnight become, if not valueless,
Speaker 1: close to valueless, in that any retailer using that particular
Speaker 1: type of setting for an engagement ring could then advertise
Speaker 1: using the Tiffany trademark. So it was very high risk
Speaker 1: situation for Tiffany at that point, with very little reward,
Speaker 1: and so it made perfect sense to choose to settle,
Speaker 1: especially if Costco had agreed to stop using the term Tiffany,
Speaker 1: but doesn't it still leave open then the question of
Speaker 1: whether or not a jeweler can use the term Tiffany
Speaker 1: setting it absolutely does leave that decision open. But that's
Speaker 1: one of the things that Tiffany probably wanted to get
Speaker 1: out of the settlement. Now, the funny thing about trademark
Speaker 1: settlement June is that you can call them confidential, but
Speaker 1: by looking at the practices of the defendant sometime after
Speaker 1: the settlement, you can pretty much figure out what settlement was.
Speaker 1: So now if you go into a Costco store and
Speaker 1: you no longer see the word Tiffany being used in
Speaker 1: connection with their engagement rings, you can pretty much be
Speaker 1: assured that the settlement agreement required them to stop using
Speaker 1: word Tiffany. And if that's what the settlement was, then
Speaker 1: I think it was a good deal for Tiffany. And
Speaker 1: the reason I say that is Tiffany continues to have
Speaker 1: leverage over anybody wanting to use the Tiffany name, Whereas
Speaker 1: if they've gone to trial and they've lost, they would
Speaker 1: have lost all leverage against these other companies in the marketplace.
Speaker 1: As long as there's this possibility that the Tiffany mark
Speaker 1: cannot be used in any use would be counterfeiting or
Speaker 1: trademark infringement. Then that gives you a pretty big stick
Speaker 1: to wield, as the lawyers trying to enforce the Tiffany trademark.
Speaker 1: Tiffany switched law firms on the matter a month ago.
Speaker 1: Could that have made a difference. It certainly is interesting timing.
Speaker 1: Sometimes by changing law firms like that, you get a
Speaker 1: different perspective on where you stand. It is from time
Speaker 1: to time possible for a law firm that has been
Speaker 1: fighting it out day to day in the trenches to
Speaker 1: develop blinders so that they've got just mono vision and
Speaker 1: they can see no path forward except through litigation. Whereas
Speaker 1: you bring in a new firm looking at the situation afresh,
Speaker 1: and they might come up with a different solution that
Speaker 1: gets the client where they want to go. You see
Speaker 1: this quite frequently in the trademark areas. Trademark is one
Speaker 1: of these funny areas of law where both clients and
Speaker 1: lawyers can become irrational because they're personally attached to the trademark.
Speaker 1: And here it is not just any trademark, It is
Speaker 1: the name of the founder of the company, Charles Tiffany,
Speaker 1: and so you often see irrational decisions going on. This
Speaker 1: lawsuit has been going on since two thousand thirteen. That's
Speaker 1: eight years. That's phenomenal for a trademark lawsuit and tells
Speaker 1: you a lot about how personally the parties took the litigation,
Speaker 1: and that probably spilled over to the lawyers and bringing
Speaker 1: him new lawyers to look at things fresh probably helped
Speaker 1: Tiffany a lot. There have been so many brand names
Speaker 1: that were trademarked that went on to become generic terms
Speaker 1: because of their popularity, asked for an escalator, taser, just
Speaker 1: to name a few. What can Tiffany do to stop
Speaker 1: that from happening to its trademark? I think in this
Speaker 1: situation it's a very challenging legal problem for Tiffany. The
Speaker 1: need to continually police the mark, which is the phrase
Speaker 1: we use in trademark law, is ongoing. It's continuing. You
Speaker 1: do not have to sue every single person who uses
Speaker 1: the word Tiffany, but you do have to show a
Speaker 1: regular pattern of chasing after people who are infringing the mark.
Speaker 1: And this is what Xerox has done so well for
Speaker 1: decades and decades now. And although we as late people
Speaker 1: may sometimes think of Xerox as having become genericized in
Speaker 1: the law, it really has not because of the enforcement
Speaker 1: actions Xerox took Tiffany's. In the same mind here, it's
Speaker 1: going to have to constantly police this mark in order
Speaker 1: to preserve it. Whether or not they have to engage
Speaker 1: in this sort of multimillion dollar legal fee litigation lasting
Speaker 1: eight years is probably overkill. But this one sort of
Speaker 1: got away from them. I assume they thought at the
Speaker 1: outset Costco would back down and it could be settled
Speaker 1: relatively quickly, but it did not. Then Costco did not,
Speaker 1: and you can sort of see why. I mean, Costco
Speaker 1: is trying to sell engagement rings. If the guy comes
Speaker 1: home from Costco and shows his fiance this lovely engagement
Speaker 1: ring that's branded a Tiffany setting, that's one thing. If
Speaker 1: he comes home in a Costco both, I mean, could
Speaker 1: you imagine I'd love to see the face of the
Speaker 1: bride when she told that her diamond engagement ring comes
Speaker 1: from Costco. That little extra branding from Tiffany really helps.
Speaker 1: And so there's gonna be a constant temptation in the
Speaker 1: marketplace for people selling diamond engagement rings to try to
Speaker 1: use the term Tiffany and then point to the setting
Speaker 1: of the diamond as allowing them to do so. So
Speaker 1: Tiffany scored beyond a continuous pressure to defend this mark.
Speaker 1: We don't know what will happen in the end, but
Speaker 1: it scored to be a costly exercise for Tiffany. I
Speaker 1: have to say, in researching this, I was surprised at
Speaker 1: some of the names that I thought were generic that
Speaker 1: were actually brand names and trademark to start out with,
Speaker 1: like Kleenex, Taser, and even TV dinner. It's an interesting
Speaker 1: part of branding in general is that you are the
Speaker 1: first to market with a product and the trade name
Speaker 1: you assigned to the product is so appropriate that you
Speaker 1: actually put it at risk of becoming generic. Sized. Aspirin
Speaker 1: is the classic example of this. It was the only
Speaker 1: product like that at the time, and people simply started
Speaker 1: referring to headache medicines as aspirant. Same with tissue paper.
Speaker 1: They were relatively quick to the marketplace with this concept
Speaker 1: perfect trade name, and people started using as we tend
Speaker 1: to do in a geneer sized way. Tiffany is a
Speaker 1: little bit different. It is a subset of the consumer
Speaker 1: world that buys engagement rings, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: little bit harder to make that an allergy to clean
Speaker 1: X or aspiring xerox. But that said, from having done
Speaker 1: a lot of jewelry cases over the years, you do
Speaker 1: hear the people who are knowledgeable about this area always
Speaker 1: referring to that setting. Setting fascinating is always terry. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. That's Terence Ross of Captain uten Rosenman. Carry
Speaker 1: Dunn spent decades at the very tomp of the New
Speaker 1: York legal profession, making millions of dollars defending Wall Street
Speaker 1: banks and global corporations. The sixty three year old was
Speaker 1: a senior partner at Davis Polkin Wardwell, one of New
Speaker 1: York's most prestigious and profitable law firms. But the sixty
Speaker 1: three year old decided to leave his elite law firm
Speaker 1: to return to the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he
Speaker 1: had his first job after law school, and as Manhattan
Speaker 1: District Attorney Cy Vance's general counsel, carry Dunn may have
Speaker 1: found the biggest case of his career investigating former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and his company. Joining me is Greg Farrell
Speaker 1: bleu Burke, Legal reporter Greg described the kind of work
Speaker 1: he did at Davis Polk Carry done. He spent three
Speaker 1: years as a baby prosecutor, an assistant district attorney under
Speaker 1: the legendary Robert Morgan Thau, from which is where he
Speaker 1: met another baby prosecutor at that time, Cyrus Vans Jr.
Speaker 1: And then left in to take a position at Davis Polk.
Speaker 1: He interviewed with Robert Fisk Jr. Who's a legendary figure
Speaker 1: in his own right. Bob Fiske was the U S
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Southern District during the Clinton administration and
Speaker 1: then became He's not as well known as the other
Speaker 1: white Water Water prosecutor, but he was the first special
Speaker 1: counsel or independent council appointed to investigate President Bill Clinton's
Speaker 1: role or whatever his connection was with the dubious real
Speaker 1: estate transactions that became to be known as Whitewater and Um.
Speaker 1: Eventually he was replaced by Ken Starr, and we all
Speaker 1: know how that movie ended. Uh So, anyway, Bob Fiske.
Speaker 1: One of the interesting things about Carry Dunn is when
Speaker 1: he said this in a testimonial to Fisk or when
Speaker 1: he was given an award a few years ago, that
Speaker 1: just while he was interviewing with Fisk. He thought, if
Speaker 1: they offered me a job, I want to take it.
Speaker 1: I want to work for this guy and do whatever
Speaker 1: he wants me to do. This is back in and
Speaker 1: it became almost a thirty year career at David's Polk.
Speaker 1: Was he a litigator there is from like Davis Polk,
Speaker 1: I take a give a lot of corporate clients. Yes,
Speaker 1: very much so. And right it's one of the largest
Speaker 1: you know, corporate's big law the definition of big law,
Speaker 1: a huge law firm, A lot of corporate work for
Speaker 1: Wall Street banks as well as just large global corporations,
Speaker 1: and done worked his way up. What I found interesting
Speaker 1: about him is he didn't become necessarily a star litigator,
Speaker 1: the guy you want in the courtroom for the big case.
Speaker 1: He did that, but a search of his pacer court
Speaker 1: files and hopefully the listeners understand what that is just
Speaker 1: a TikTok of the cases he was involved with and
Speaker 1: appeared in court. Was fairly heavy in the ninet nineties,
Speaker 1: but started petering out in the early two thousand's when
Speaker 1: he became like a managing partner and started devoting more
Speaker 1: of his time to managing the law firm. It was
Speaker 1: also during that period in the late nineties where he
Speaker 1: devoted a lot of his time to efforts that were
Speaker 1: not billable hours. Bob Fisk, you know, was appointed to
Speaker 1: lead a commission in the nineteen nineties to clean up
Speaker 1: the mess, or at least two come up with a
Speaker 1: solution to the problem of courts being basically overrun with
Speaker 1: drug crimes and like, as you remember, the nineteen nineties
Speaker 1: was a terrible time in the country, but particularly in
Speaker 1: New York City for drug crimes. And so when you
Speaker 1: talk about drug crimes, you have a wide variety extending
Speaker 1: from notorious bad actors and traffickers who kill people and
Speaker 1: are involved with cartels and need to be tried in
Speaker 1: the federal court system or in the state court system
Speaker 1: and put away for a long time, all the way
Speaker 1: down to you know, sad cases of people who were
Speaker 1: addicted and then you know, break into a car and
Speaker 1: steal the radio so they can get their hundred dollar
Speaker 1: fixed that night. And you know, the system in the
Speaker 1: lumped them all together, and the devised under Bob Fift's
Speaker 1: direction carry done was his basically his general counsel for
Speaker 1: that wrote a report suggesting the creation of a whole
Speaker 1: new tier of courts UH for these low level basically
Speaker 1: sad addicted case offenders, so that they could, instead of
Speaker 1: being thrown in jail, could be given if you know,
Speaker 1: they passed, you know, muster, basically the opportunity to come clean,
Speaker 1: beat their habit, and return to you know society as
Speaker 1: you know, productive you know people and UH and not
Speaker 1: have to go to jail for ten years because they
Speaker 1: did something really stupid when they were high. And this
Speaker 1: became very successful at relieving the burden on the New
Speaker 1: York State drug system of all huge amount of these
Speaker 1: cases that were clogging the system. And also just in
Speaker 1: terms of doing a good thing, basically separating people who
Speaker 1: did not need to be put away from many years
Speaker 1: and allow them a chance to redeem themselves and clean
Speaker 1: up their act. And it became a model from any
Speaker 1: other states to pursue. So carry Dunne was instrumental in
Speaker 1: basically putting this paper together. The judge who asked Fist
Speaker 1: to to do this with so impressed by done that
Speaker 1: she named him to a couple of subsequent commissions, one
Speaker 1: of which was aimed at providing legal services to so
Speaker 1: called indigent people. Now we all know that if you
Speaker 1: are accused of crime and you're poor and you have
Speaker 1: no access to a public defender will be appointed to
Speaker 1: represent you. That's criminal. There's like so many cases, civil
Speaker 1: cases where somebody's been wronged or accused of something and
Speaker 1: they can't afford like a real lawyer, you know, so
Speaker 1: they represent themselves and of course lose because they don't
Speaker 1: even know what they're doing in court. And carry Done
Speaker 1: headed up a commission that sort of came up with
Speaker 1: a solution of providing free legal services to people who
Speaker 1: didn't couldn't afford so the least they could get some
Speaker 1: professional representation in court in a civil case. So that's
Speaker 1: yet another example of what he did to sort of
Speaker 1: like improve the court system in New York. Those are
Speaker 1: not buillable hours. That's stuff that doesn't care. And at
Speaker 1: one point he was president of the Manhattan Bar Association.
Speaker 1: So I spoke to retired judge Ry Caymans, who had
Speaker 1: served with carry Down on some of these uh and
Speaker 1: and helped out significantly on some of these commissions. And
Speaker 1: because I'm not a lawyer, and I thought, well, why
Speaker 1: is it a big deal? Every biographical sketch of carry
Speaker 1: Dunn says he you know, president of New York City Bar,
Speaker 1: and he said, no, that's significant because of how much
Speaker 1: time and effort he put into improving the system, uh
Speaker 1: to you know, basically good causes that for him, as
Speaker 1: a senior corporate lawyer to take this on and throw
Speaker 1: himself at that and continue some of the work he
Speaker 1: was doing is significant. Judge Cammons told me that he
Speaker 1: you could look at Carry Dunn as a guy who
Speaker 1: had three careers, first as a prosecutor, second as a
Speaker 1: corporate litigator, big money you know, representative for you know,
Speaker 1: Wall Street banks and global corporations, but finally as head
Speaker 1: of the New York City Bar, and as someone who
Speaker 1: basically for the industry of lawyers in New York really
Speaker 1: contributed a tremendous amount of time and energy. Dunn has
Speaker 1: been recognized, you know, and given awards for all the
Speaker 1: amount of time and eff he was put into pro
Speaker 1: bono work. Um, but that's something that someone like me
Speaker 1: who writes about this stuff for Bloomberg News, it was
Speaker 1: not on my radar screen. I write about, you know,
Speaker 1: the companies and the banks that get charged with something
Speaker 1: and who defends them, etcetera. So this is a significant
Speaker 1: part of his career, and now he's come full circle.
Speaker 1: He's back, you know, working with the prosecution team in
Speaker 1: what could eventually be like the most significant case of
Speaker 1: his life. What I found interesting is that he said
Speaker 1: that his proudest moment was not all his Wall Street work,
Speaker 1: but his pro bono defense of a Bronx residence. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right. So there was a murder in Brooklyn in
Speaker 1: the summer of two thousand one, and a guy named
Speaker 1: Lonnie Jones was identified by an eye witnesses, you know,
Speaker 1: someone who shot like a gang leader or something. And
Speaker 1: it went to trial and this you know, key government
Speaker 1: witness testified against him, bang bang bang guilty, you know,
Speaker 1: and then sent away. A group of Davis Polk lawyers
Speaker 1: and every large law firm has people dedicated to pro
Speaker 1: bono work, and a couple of them, including someone who's
Speaker 1: now a senior official. Justice Department, concluded that, you know,
Speaker 1: this key witness was lying and that there were a
Speaker 1: couple of other witnesses who had not been contacted who
Speaker 1: could refute that testimony. And so they basically won the
Speaker 1: right for retrial to get the original conviction thrown out.
Speaker 1: And at the retrial, uh, they brought in carry Donne,
Speaker 1: you know, again, a senior trial lawyer at Davis Polk
Speaker 1: to do the arguments. They didn't do it themselves. And
Speaker 1: you know, he did it effectively and won an acquittal.
Speaker 1: And he said he told the Village Voice this. There
Speaker 1: was a great story in the Village Voice from you know,
Speaker 1: fifteen years ago on this, and he said that, no
Speaker 1: matter what I do, this will probably be the most
Speaker 1: important thing I ever did as a lawyer. It was
Speaker 1: very a very touching remark for a guy who has yes,
Speaker 1: made millions of dollars whose corporate work. So his demeanor
Speaker 1: was described as mild mannered, but Judge Caman said that
Speaker 1: he has tremendous charisma. I guess the mild manner description
Speaker 1: and I talked about this with my editor. So much
Speaker 1: is more like um. In response to the Trump organizations, lawyers,
Speaker 1: I think quite rightfully are trying to make the case
Speaker 1: that this is a political you know, elected Democrats in
Speaker 1: New York state of going after the president. So they're
Speaker 1: trying to cast doubt on the veracity or the legitimacy
Speaker 1: of the charges and instead of engaging, and this is
Speaker 1: to the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior's credit. Instead
Speaker 1: of engaging them directly or having a press conference outside
Speaker 1: the courthouse to fight back at them, he's taken a
Speaker 1: guy who's really perceived a political you know, made some
Speaker 1: modest contributions to Democrats over many years, but not many
Speaker 1: He's not a big political player, and a guy who's
Speaker 1: not likely to get hot and bothered and angry and
Speaker 1: fight back fire with fire like a cable TV talk
Speaker 1: show host or something. So I think that's what the
Speaker 1: mild management and unflappable. And you heard that in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court argument that he did. He was unflappable, but
Speaker 1: very convincing. His tone was moderate. So and actually the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court thing is is hugely significant. Um as you know,
Speaker 1: there are not one, but two visits to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court because the Trump organization, again exercising his rights, you know,
Speaker 1: fought the idea of allowing a grand jury to subpoena
Speaker 1: the now former president's tax records. And think about this.
Speaker 1: You've got Donald Trump's lawyer, j Secalo, and and also
Speaker 1: you know Noel Francisco of these as a listener General's
Speaker 1: Office of the U. S Government arguing that you know,
Speaker 1: you what you could end up doing. If you allow
Speaker 1: the Manhattan District Attorney to do something like this, you
Speaker 1: could basically empower all twenty county prosecutors across the country
Speaker 1: to go, you know, reek mayhem on any president, including
Speaker 1: Joe Biden now or something. So, uh, they introduced this
Speaker 1: worst case scenario, and the Supreme Court justices, you know,
Speaker 1: take that seriously, and so you could have you know,
Speaker 1: Vance himself standing up there. You need someone from the office.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people who don't have a lot of experience, parties
Speaker 1: that don't have a lot of experience at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court engage a professional, you know, lawyer like Walter Dellinger
Speaker 1: when we quote in the article, who has lots of
Speaker 1: experience arguing before the Supreme Court. But Vance, to his credit,
Speaker 1: made the right to acision. It had to be someone
Speaker 1: from his office making this argument, and it could have
Speaker 1: been a line prosecutor. But a line prosecutor is always
Speaker 1: already committed to a case. When you're a prosecutor and
Speaker 1: you've gone this far, there's a certain amount of investment,
Speaker 1: uh in this. Someone like done and all the work
Speaker 1: he's done for legal reform in New York State is
Speaker 1: not someone who could be described either as a partisan
Speaker 1: elected official or a prosecutor who's so dug into a
Speaker 1: case that he can't see the bigger picture. He was
Speaker 1: actually the perfect guy to put in front of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And even though he never argued before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court before, he was very well briefed by the team,
Speaker 1: you know, and was able to engage with the justices.
Speaker 1: And here's another thing that when you're appearing before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, particularly for the first time, uh, it's not
Speaker 1: uncommon for lawyer's you know, to start overacting because this
Speaker 1: is like the Super Bowl and they're they're on the
Speaker 1: field and you've got the nine justices right there. Although
Speaker 1: I think it was a zoom call, but you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, there's still that like high pressure of like,
Speaker 1: oh my word, I'm right here in front of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So that can affect not in a good
Speaker 1: way your presentation, because you tend to be more valuable
Speaker 1: or overly demonstrative. And if you listen to carry Dun's
Speaker 1: presentation was, you know, it was as though these were
Speaker 1: just nine local New York State judges whom we had known.
Speaker 1: He was very direct, listened to them, respond to them,
Speaker 1: to not start like bloviating about you know this, he
Speaker 1: was impressive and the opposite of Seculo. So Seco does
Speaker 1: what he does, and he does it well. This was
Speaker 1: a very different approach. Yes, so he's in this law
Speaker 1: firm where he's basically can do whatever he wants, right,
Speaker 1: he's a senior partner. So why does he decide to
Speaker 1: is he taking a leave? Is that what it is from? No?
Speaker 1: I think he decided first of all, you know, like
Speaker 1: in investment banks as well, at a certain point in
Speaker 1: law firms, you know that you don't keep holding these
Speaker 1: full time, highly paid jobs forever. At a certain point,
Speaker 1: you know, you become the senior part or whatever. But
Speaker 1: Bob Fisk himself, who's aged ninety, is still attached to
Speaker 1: Davis Polk. But of course he's not in there working
Speaker 1: all the time, but he's know, so there's a way
Speaker 1: of sort of you know, stepping back from the firm.
Speaker 1: And he had known Si Vance Junior for a long time.
Speaker 1: And Vance was beginning his third term as district attorney.
Speaker 1: And it's it's normal every four years for the senior
Speaker 1: staff of an elected official like that to turn over.
Speaker 1: And you know, after his first term, the first General
Speaker 1: Council step down, and after the second term, the second
Speaker 1: General Council step down, and he tapped carry down. And
Speaker 1: I think I don't know this, but it certainly appears
Speaker 1: as though he was ready for a new challenge. He'd
Speaker 1: done everything he could do, uh the law firm, he'd
Speaker 1: already given back a lot through the New York City
Speaker 1: Bar Association. And here's you know, somebody's known for a
Speaker 1: long time who asked him to be general Council. Literally,
Speaker 1: did he know who's about to step into like this cauldron,
Speaker 1: not just this case about the Trump organization, but Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein two point oh yeah. He started in January seventeen,
Speaker 1: but he agreed and the press release went out like
Speaker 1: November two and other words, before the election when most
Speaker 1: people thought Hillary Hillary Clinton was going to going to win.
Speaker 1: He accepted the job. So, um, this investigation didn't really
Speaker 1: begin until, you know, the whole business with Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: and the payment to the porn stars and the federal
Speaker 1: case which revealed that the Trump organization, at least in
Speaker 1: the instance of Michael Cohen and Storm McDaniels, had kept
Speaker 1: inaccurate books and records, presumably for the purpose of disguising
Speaker 1: you know what, this money was being paid to Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen when a factor was because you know, Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: had paid money out of his pocket to this adult
Speaker 1: film actors. So Cyrus Vance is leaving at the end
Speaker 1: of the year. Alvin Bragg, the Democratic candidate for Manhattan
Speaker 1: d A, is on track to take his place, assuming
Speaker 1: he wins the election. Will done stay or go? He's
Speaker 1: been with Vance now for this will be his fourth year.
Speaker 1: And yes, since Vance is leaving at the end of
Speaker 1: the year, the question is whether or not he'll stay
Speaker 1: because he's Vance is guy. He's not like a career
Speaker 1: professional in the office, so it'll be interesting to see thing.
Speaker 1: Because he holds the title of general counsel, Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: I presumed one his own general council. However, Bragg has
Speaker 1: stated publicly, because he's been asked about this, that he
Speaker 1: has no plans to change the team. You know, he doesn't,
Speaker 1: and that's a wise thing to say, Like you wouldn't
Speaker 1: broadcast that now anyway, even if you felt that way,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't want to shake something up, but just let
Speaker 1: them go. I do think, assuming or if Bragg does
Speaker 1: in fact win the election in November then I would
Speaker 1: imagine and later that month there will be some conversations
Speaker 1: between Bragg and some senior I guess, for lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, political appointees, a vance personal appointees like
Speaker 1: Carry Dunne and like Mark Palmertz, who was also someone
Speaker 1: who comes from the world of big corporate law and
Speaker 1: who has you know, signed on temporary basis to be
Speaker 1: a prosecutor in this case against the Trump organization. So
Speaker 1: that will be interesting to see, you know, at the
Speaker 1: end of the year whether or not you know, these
Speaker 1: two people who are important, you know, to the prosecution
Speaker 1: stay on. Having said that, in the case of Kerry Done,
Speaker 1: you've got a team of line prosecutors who have been
Speaker 1: working on this for a couple of years. You know,
Speaker 1: they didn't argue before the Supreme Court, but they're fully
Speaker 1: immersed in the case. And when let's assume that Alan
Speaker 1: Alan Weisselberg, who has been charged, goes to trial, they're
Speaker 1: the ones who are going to be doing the prosecution,
Speaker 1: not Carried. Has there been any movement as far as
Speaker 1: we talked before about the Wisselberg indictment, has there been
Speaker 1: any movement or any move to indict anyone else, as
Speaker 1: we expected. If there is, it's not visible. So I
Speaker 1: covered the UH investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller for
Speaker 1: a couple of years from seen and we talked about
Speaker 1: this a lot, and particularly early on, but this continued
Speaker 1: were accusations, mostly from Republicans, that you know, the Moller
Speaker 1: team was leaking, and of course they weren't. There were
Speaker 1: no leaks at all. From that, to the great frustration
Speaker 1: of me and everyone else who covered this, there was
Speaker 1: nothing to get out of that black box. There have
Speaker 1: been similar accusations about the Manhattan District Attorney's office UM
Speaker 1: and to be fair there it's much more likely for
Speaker 1: local prosecutors, elected officials to leak than it is for
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors who are appointed and not you know, don't
Speaker 1: need to cry favor of the public, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's been accusations of that. At the same time, I
Speaker 1: think there's been a heightened awareness. I think Vance's office
Speaker 1: knows that they have no margin for error, so they've
Speaker 1: been very careful about this. They do not want leaks
Speaker 1: to go out. They do not want to give like
Speaker 1: fuel to the fire. You know that the Trump organizations
Speaker 1: lawyers will will will exploit if it becomes clear that
Speaker 1: there are leaking stuff. So that's a long winded preamble
Speaker 1: to answer your question, which is that, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're continuing to work on this, uh and
Speaker 1: in several directions. One is that um Weislberg, and this
Speaker 1: has been the strategy. They would like to get him
Speaker 1: to think this through and decide that he'd rather help
Speaker 1: them and minimize his uh you know, potential time. The
Speaker 1: indictment against him and the Trump organization UM is well
Speaker 1: beyond just a you know, an accusation of some you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, poor decision in terms of taxes by Weislberg.
Speaker 1: It in some ways as a blueprint for like the
Speaker 1: prosecutors showing their hand like many people did this at
Speaker 1: the Trump organization. This was standard practice. It wasn't as
Speaker 1: though Alan Wisenberg, the CFO, as alleged, is like a
Speaker 1: bad apple or a rogue or going off the reservation
Speaker 1: to feather his own nest. It's more a suggestion that
Speaker 1: this There are many executives at the Trump organization UM
Speaker 1: did this. So it's quite likely that you know, other
Speaker 1: senior executives not named Trump, but other senior executives are
Speaker 1: you know, who maybe got a car or a reduced
Speaker 1: rate apartment uh and did not include that as a
Speaker 1: material benefit on their taxes. Um, you know, are concerned
Speaker 1: that they might get charged similarly. So I think it's
Speaker 1: fair to assume that, you know, the wheels were in
Speaker 1: motion if there are any other senior executives there now
Speaker 1: the senior executive everyone cares about the former president Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 1: That's you know again, it's you know, you read the indictment.
Speaker 1: You know, it's hard to believe that he probably didn't
Speaker 1: you know, get some benefit like that himself. However, he
Speaker 1: was not the CFO, so it could be that you know, uh,
Speaker 1: these benefits were spread around and if Weislberg was the
Speaker 1: you know, the genius behind it, uh, and Trump can
Speaker 1: say like, hey, you know he he told me it
Speaker 1: was okay, that's say, you know, that's that's a defense.
Speaker 1: So that's why the pressure is being brought by the
Speaker 1: d a's office on Weiselberg is because you know, he's
Speaker 1: the key guy. So you know, I think I think
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has or would have if if you know,
Speaker 1: things stand as they are now, some defense against the
Speaker 1: charge that he should have you know, maybe you could
Speaker 1: get him just payback the taxes that he owes, but
Speaker 1: he would be able to blame or at least say,
Speaker 1: you know, my CFO, you know who's the guy who's
Speaker 1: been doing this for decades that it was okay so
Speaker 1: or something like that. Yeah. And on a personal note,
Speaker 1: he's known for his workout regime and laying in a
Speaker 1: rock band. He goes to the gym regularly. And this
Speaker 1: is another sort of informal legacy, you know, something that
Speaker 1: you learned from his mentor, Bob Fisk. Fisk, who's nine
Speaker 1: years old, way before was fashionable in the nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: and eighties, stayed in shape, He ran marathons, you know,
Speaker 1: he played tennis, uh and did all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 1: And I think it's uh and it used to be
Speaker 1: a hockey player. Um. And but sometimes bring his ice
Speaker 1: skates and go play hockey, you know. So I think, um,
Speaker 1: that's one of the things Done realized is in order
Speaker 1: to be able to do everything the way Fisk could,
Speaker 1: you have to be in shape and you have to
Speaker 1: you know, take care of your body. So there's that. Um.
Speaker 1: So he goes to the gym and uh and works
Speaker 1: out pretty regularly. The band is funny. You can look
Speaker 1: it up online if you're interested in, you know, corporate
Speaker 1: law rock. There are fundraising I didn't know this world existed,
Speaker 1: but there are fundraisers where you know, the New York
Speaker 1: City Bar Association for example. If somebody will bring together
Speaker 1: you know a bunch of rock bands consisting of not
Speaker 1: just the partners like Harry Dunne, but you know the
Speaker 1: guy from the accounting department or you know someone, and
Speaker 1: all for good cause. But also all these people, even
Speaker 1: the ones without hair, could let their hair down, live
Speaker 1: out that dream that got sidetracked from when they went
Speaker 1: to law school. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg Legal
Speaker 1: reporter Greg Farrell, and that's it for the edition of
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Last Show. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg