Deposition of Scott Rothstein re - Trustee Services

Deposition of Scott Rothstein re - Trustee Services Deposition of Scott Rothstein re - Trustee Services

trusteeservices.biz
from trusteeservices.biz More from this publisher
05.10.2014 Views

1 A. I don't have a specific recollection, but Page 138 2 very few people were hitting the number. 3 Q. All right. What about in 2008, do you 4 recall what the revenues were for RRA from attorney's 5 fees? 6 A. Between eight and $9 million. 7 Q. And at that point in time the firm had how 8 many lawyers? 9 A. 2008, more than 50 I would guess, more than 10 40, 50, 60. 11 Q. So at 50 lawyers, that's less than $200,000 12 a lawyer. Was that the goal for each lawyer in the 13 firm? 14 A. No, sir. 15 Q. All right. So it would be fair to say that 16 basically this firm wasn't really performing any legal 17 services, it was used more or less as a charade to 18 give your Ponzi scheme the ability to operate and/or 19 have some legitimacy? 20 MR. GAY: Objection to form. 21 THE WITNESS: That's not true. 22 BY MR. SALIM: 23 Q. All right. Tell me where I'm wrong, Scott. 24 A. You have to differentiate between their 25 ability to collect money and bill money and get

1 clients and what was going on on the fraud side. Yes, 2 there were a number of people who worked at the firm 3 who were my co-conspirators and who were involved in 4 the Ponzi scheme, but the bulk of the firm was made up 5 of good, honest, hardworking lawyers and support staff 6 that had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. 7 And the fact that a lot of money wasn't 8 generated was more as a result of our lack of 9 direction and our business doing illegal business and 10 not paying attention to the law firm, than it 11 reflected on those good lawyers. 12 Q. I understand the fact that RRA was not 13 created for purposes of operating a Ponzi scheme, but 14 by 2007, obviously, at $8 million in revenue, could it 15 even pay the salaries that you were paying the lawyers 16 and staff based on its legitimate -- 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. All right. And in 2008, could it pay its 19 lawyers and staff salaries based on legitimate law 20 firm revenues? 21 A. To my knowledge, no, sir. 22 Q. Did you utilize Ponzi funds to pay the 23 operating expenses of the firm? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. Did you use Ponzi funds to pay the salaries Page 139

1 clients and what was going on on the fraud side. Yes,<br />

2 the<strong>re</strong> we<strong>re</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> people who worked at the firm<br />

3 who we<strong>re</strong> my co-conspirators and who we<strong>re</strong> involved in<br />

4 the Ponzi scheme, but the bulk <strong>of</strong> the firm was made up<br />

5 <strong>of</strong> good, honest, hardworking lawyers and support staff<br />

6 that had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme.<br />

7 And the fact that a lot <strong>of</strong> money wasn't<br />

8 generated was mo<strong>re</strong> as a <strong>re</strong>sult <strong>of</strong> our lack <strong>of</strong><br />

9 di<strong>re</strong>ction and our business doing illegal business and<br />

10 not paying attention to the law firm, than it<br />

11 <strong>re</strong>flected on those good lawyers.<br />

12 Q. I understand the fact that RRA was not<br />

13 c<strong>re</strong>ated for purposes <strong>of</strong> operating a Ponzi scheme, but<br />

14 by 2007, obviously, at $8 million in <strong>re</strong>venue, could it<br />

15 even pay the salaries that you we<strong>re</strong> paying the lawyers<br />

16 and staff based on its legitimate --<br />

17 A. No, sir.<br />

18 Q. All right. And in 2008, could it pay its<br />

19 lawyers and staff salaries based on legitimate law<br />

20 firm <strong>re</strong>venues?<br />

21 A. To my knowledge, no, sir.<br />

22 Q. Did you utilize Ponzi funds to pay the<br />

23 operating expenses <strong>of</strong> the firm?<br />

24 A. I did.<br />

25 Q. Did you use Ponzi funds to pay the salaries<br />

Page 139

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!