Another Firm Swept Up in Suit Over Stanford Scheme

By Leigh Jones
The National Law Journal
New York Lawyer
October 13, 2009

Investors who sued Proskauer Rose in August accusing one of its partners of involvement in Stanford Financial Group's alleged Ponzi scheme have added Chadbourne & Parke as a defendant.

The class action alleges that attorney Thomas V. Sjoblom, while he worked at New York-based Chadbourne & Parke and later at New York's Proskauer Rose, participated in a $7 billion investment fraud orchestrated by the Texas company.

The National Law Journal has learned that Sjoblom, who joined Proskauer Rose in 2006, has withdrawn from the firm since the class action was filed. Sjoblom's withdrawal follows a guilty plea in August by former Stanford Chief Financial Officer James Davis, which appeared to implicate Sjoblom in a conspiracy to thwart a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the alleged fraud.

The SEC in February charged that Stanford Financial Group, led by Allen Stanford, was conducting a "massive ongoing fraud" that included inflated promises of returns from the sale of $8 billion in high-yield certificates of deposit.

The second amended complaint in the Texas class action, filed Friday, also names as a defendant P. Mauricio Alvarado, the former general counsel of Stanford Financial Group.

Chadbourne & Parke declined to comment on the lawsuit. A spokesman for Proskauer Rose confirmed that Sjoblom has withdrawn from the firm.

Sjoblom joined the Washington office of Proskauer Rose from Chadbourne & Parke. Before that, he worked for the SEC for 20 years, part of that time as assistant chief of litigation counsel.

Representing the plaintiffs is Edward C. Snyder and Jesse R. Castillo of Castillo Snyder in San Antonio, Texas.

[Index to Articles]

 

A Feast

Take Action

Judicial Accountability | Judicial Independence | Discipline State Court Judges
Appeals-State Court | Disposal of JQC & Other Records | Discipline Federal Court Judges | Appeals -Federal Court | Judicial Canons | Violation of Separation of Powers
History of the Bar | Privatization of the Bar | Unauthorized Appropriation of Funds
The Judicial Bar Rules | Unauthorized Bar Functions | Law is Big Business | Endnotes