You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:04-cv-02799-BMC-VVP Document 1000 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 74703

DLA Piper LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, New York 10020-1104 Shand S. Stephens T 212.335.4594 F 212.335.4501

February 26, 2014 VIA ECF Honorable Brian M. Cogan United States District Judge United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 04-CV-2799 (BMC) (VVP), and related cases

Dear Judge Cogan: On behalf of Arab Bank, PLC (Arab Bank), we bring to the Courts attention an effort by counsel for plaintiffs to taint the jury pool in this matter by making prejudicial statements to the media. Plaintiffs counsels conduct violates Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In an article titled Following the Blood Money, published on February 23 on the internet news site Pando. com, two of plaintiffs counsel, Tab Turner (admitted pro hac vice on 11/5/2009) and Gary Osen, impugn Arab Bank and its employees, make numerous misstatements about highly-contested factual and legal matters in this litigation, and purport to reveal confidential mediation discussions. See, Following the Blood Money: Exposing the Secret US Banking Operation that Help Fund Suicide Bombers, by Adam L. Pennenberg, available at and Mr. Turner describes the Banks executives as roaches, criminals, and the lowest form of humanity. According to the article: He doesnt mince words when characterizing Arab Bank executives. Turner calls them criminals, roaches who move around in the dark of night, inciting terrorism for profit. Theres no lower form of humanity than a guy in a suit making money off a teenager detonating a bomb on a bus, then slithering home to watch CNN. Mr. Osen is quoted as referring to Arab Banks participation in the banal evil of the international cash-for-martyrdom industry- a perversion of the facts in the case relevant to Arab Bank, and a crude reference to Hannah Arendts famous history of Adolf Eichmann and other

Case 1:04-cv-02799-BMC-VVP Document 1000 Filed 02/26/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 74704

Honorable Brian M. Cogan February 26, 2014 Page Two Nazi leaders, which is titled the Banality of Evil. See, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (The Viking Press 1963). In other violations of Rule 3.6, Mr. Osen and Mr. Turner parade their false and prejudicial claims that Arab Bank participated in the assembly of martyr kits for suicide bombers, and that Arab Bank was facilitating terror from its offices on Madison Avenue. Mr. Osen and Mr. Turner also expound on the February 2004 seizure by the Israel Defense Forces of third-party funds in accounts located at Arab Bank in clear disregard of this Courts ruling that evidence about the IDF seizure is not generally admissible at trial. Mr. Osen and Mr. Turner also improperly disclose the payment of a $24 million fine by Arab Banks New York Branch to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency arising from a 2004 Consent Order, evidence that this Court has held is likely inadmissible at trial, and then mischaracterize the basis for the OCC fine. In the article, Osen and Turner discuss their version of the appellate process, accuse the Bank of stonewalling, and, at the same time, of violating privacy laws of its home country of Jordan. Mr. Turner even discloses confidential settlement demands which were made before Judge Layn Phillips late last year in mediation ordered by the Court, thus violating the parties and Judge Philips agreement that the mediation discussions would not be public. Mr. Osen and Mr. Turner portray themselves in the article as crusaders on behalf of victims of the Holocaust and the September 11 terror attacks, and on behalf of injured plaintiffs self-portrayals that clearly could not be made to any jury, or jury pool. For instance, the article states that Osen [is] no ambulance chaser. As a lawyer had carved out a unique specialty performing Holocaust restitution work on behalf of Jews whose property had been forcibly confiscated by the Nazis and communists. It describes Turner as a one-man litigation machine for injured plaintiffs. And Osen and Turner tout their version of the facts regarding one of the named plaintiffs in this action, also for the purpose of prejudicing any potential jury pool. Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires that A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in a criminal or civil matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. The Rule explains that A statement ordinarily is likely to prejudice materially an adjudicative proceeding when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury . . . and the statement relates to:

Case 1:04-cv-02799-BMC-VVP Document 1000 Filed 02/26/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 74705

Honorable Brian M. Cogan February 26, 2014 Page Three (1) [T]he character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness or the expected testimony of a party or witness; ... (5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; (Rule 3.6 of N.Y. Rules of Prof. Conduct, see N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 1200.0.) See, e.g., Coggins v. County of Nassau, Slip Copy, 2014 WL 495646, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.6, 2014) (emphasizing the responsibility of counsel to minimize the risk of negative pre-trial publicity that may frustrate the ability to select a fair and impartial jury if the case proceeds to trial, in circumstances where counsels violations were materially less egregious than those at issue here). The article appeared shortly after the parties submitted their Preliminary Jury Questionnaire on February 14, and its timing can only be seen as an effort to bias the jury pool in light of the previously scheduled May 5 trial date in this matter. The reported statements by Mr. Turner and Mr. Osen violate Rule 3.6 and disregard the evidentiary rulings of this Court. As set forth in Coggins, supra, the available remedies for their misconduct include a change of venue, trial postponement, a searching voir dire, emphatic jury instructions, and emphatic warnings to the press and parties. We ask the Court to enter an Order directing all plaintiffs counsel to comply with their ethical obligations counsel, and for such other relief as the Court may deem proper under the circumstances. Very truly yours,

Shand S. Stephens SSS:/rm cc: all counsel (via ECF)