ILNews

High-priced Chicago firm handling Durham’s appeal pro bono

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Just because Tim Durham isn’t paying a lawyer to handle the appeal of his 50-year federal prison sentence doesn’t mean he’s getting shortchanged.

Durham, sentenced in November on criminal fraud charges relating to the collapse of Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance Co., has the firepower of one of the nation's largest law firms behind him.

James H. Mutchnik, a white-collar criminal defense attorney at Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis, revealed in court documents earlier this month that he’ll be representing Durham without charge during his appeal.

Durham filed in December to appeal his conviction to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, but said he had no money to hire an attorney.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted his request to proceed with his case as an indigent after Durham told her that his multimillion-dollar home is in foreclosure and his financial assets are tied up in bankruptcy proceeding of the companies he used to control.

It’s unclear why Mutchnik chose to represent Durham pro bono. He didn’t return a phone call from IBJ, and a firm spokesman declined to comment beyond issuing a statement confirming that Mutchnik is in fact leading Durham’s federal appeal.

Durham’s previous counsel, Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer John Tompkins, is no longer involved in the case.

“I know that Kirkland takes pro-bono cases on a regular basis,” he said. “This hit their radar somehow.”

It’s not uncommon for certain law firms to handle white-collar criminal appeals without expecting to be paid. Their fees often are too expensive for many defendants to afford, and handling an appeal pro bono gives their lawyers additional experience.

Only a small percentage of federal appeals are heard orally by judges, as most are addressed in written rulings.

Having Kirkland & Ellis representing Durham spares Magnus-Stinson from appointing a public defender.

With 1,442 lawyers in 10 global offices, Kirkland & Ellis is the world’s 13th-largest law firm, according to the National Law Journal’s latest ranking of the 250 biggest firms.

Mutchnik earned his law degree in 1989 from the Northwestern University School of Law. His biography on the firm’s website says he represents individuals and corporations in antitrust and white-collar criminal defense cases.

His legal work includes appearances before various investigative agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.   

A jury convicted Durham of securities fraud, conspiracy and 10 counts of wire fraud for orchestrating a Ponzi scheme that swindled 5,000 Ohio investors out of more than $200 million.

Unlike state prisoners, federal inmates must serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, meaning Durham would have to live to 93 to survive his sentence.

Last month, Fair Finance bankruptcy trustee Brian Bash, charged with recovering funds for Fair investors, alleged in a court filing that National Lampoon Inc. funded Durham’s defense during his trial.

Durham was CEO at National Lampoon from 2008 until stepping down in January 2012. Bash is suing the Los Angeles-based company and is seeking to recover $9 million that Durham provided it over the past decade.

Fair Finance co-owner Jim Cochran received a 25-year sentence and Rick Snow, the company’s chief financial officer, received 10 years.

All of IBJ's coverage of Tim Durham and Fair Finance can be found here.

The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT