But, back to the lawyering lesson.  And, please, remember these are just allegations - you can read the articles.  The Newark Star-Ledger reports, on its front page, that Paul Bergrin, a prominent north Jersey defense lawyer was busted for his involvement in running a high-end escort service in NYC.

Bergrin represents a lot of people in serious trouble, including a couple of soldiers charged in Iraq prisoner abuse - one of whom is scheduled to go before a court-martial next week.  He was an AUSA and then went into defense work.

The NY Post wrote their article in full sentences, for a change.  They have not a little of their typical schadenfreude, too.  

The Times takes the upstanding establishment angle, and includes in the coverage a comment by Bergrin's lawyer that maybe Bergrin was too effective an advocate, leading to government retaliation.  FWIW, the possibility that the government will come after the lawyer for being too good at defending the client is in my experience always lurking in the back of every defense lawyer's mind.  

And, The Sun, covers the story, too.

I remember the story bubbling up and then subsiding in '05 - the alleged lead call girl was in the pokey and was profiled extensively (as was the alleged pimp) in New York Magazine.  As I recall it, she blamed her bust on attention derived from the service's business cards landing on City Hall desks - not that they got there by way of someone complaining to the Mayor - but something rather more like, uh, the way business cards get passed around.  But, for a lawyer to get tied in in the way these allegations read, well, it's pretty surprising.  Because lawyers should not get involved in business with their clients and usually don't.  They're lawyers and stick to lawyering.  

There's a general rule of lawyer ethics against entering into business arrangements  - of whatever kind - with their own clients.  There's a lot of common sense behind it (like, either be a lawyer or be in business, but don't try to do both), but the gist of the rule is that by entering into the business relationship, the lawyer both surrenders the lawyer's independence and goes into a position where the lawyer's and client's interests can be (or are) in conflict.  The lawyer loses independence because now the lawyer's financial interests are impacted by how the client gets treated - the lawyer can structure the arrangement to stiff the client out of business opportunities.  Or the client can stiff the lawyer by running the business into the ground.  Or, the client can suborn the lawyer into illegality (dubious or not-so-dubious) with the promise (sometimes fulfilled) of profit.  Or, alternatively, the lawyer find themself in a position where the lawyer's interests lead to not necessarily doing what is best for the client.  Since the lawyer's duty to the client is fiduciary in nature, anything which could lead to not necessarily doing what is best for the client is to be avoided.  

And that, in a nutshell, is why lawyers shouldn't enter into business arrangements - of any kind - with their clients.