Blog of law articles

Remember when Bowman Brown nearly had his own Teevee show, appearing all over the media and sharing that now-apocryphal "brush with Stanford" anecdote? I love the anecdote personally, but even I started to wonder when I turned on iCarly and dang it! -- there he was again....

But it is such a great story. To borrow from Gore Vidal for a moment, the art of a good lawyer war story is to craft something that manages to burnish your own skills and competence at some other lawyer or judge's expense.

By that measure Bowman has hit it out of the park.

Still, there was always this lingering unanswered question:

"What he wanted to do was just not workable in my view, it was not anything I wanted to be near," Brown said. "I told him that I couldn't help him, so he went across the street and found somebody who could and set up in Miami."

So -- just who is Bowman talking about??

Now comes this tantalizing clue:

As part of his effort to locate and recover Stanford assets, Ralph Janvey, a court-appointed receiver, asked a judge to force the law firm Hunton & Williams LLP to turn over all records of its work for Stanford International Bank, according to papers filed March 24 in federal court in Dallas.

The Richmond, Virginia-based law firm rejected a Feb. 24 request to ship the receiver original files and billing records for Stanford’s foreign businesses, including the Antigua-based bank and operations in Ecuador, Panama and Grenada, according to Janvey.

“The Hunton & Williams law firm has declined to relinquish possession and control of records that are part of the receivership estate,” Janvey said in the filing. “Information regarding valuable assets belonging to the bank and other offshore Stanford entities may be found in the files.”

The law firm and one of its Miami-based lawyers, Carlos Loumiet, questioned Janvey’s jurisdiction over Houston-based Stanford’s foreign records. Janvey, appointed to recover assets to repay victims, said Hunton & Williams is providing only the requested documents for Stanford’s U.S. businesses.

We previously wrote about Carlos here (he was completely acquitted, by the way).

Now Carlos appears to only be representing his firm regarding the subpoena, from what I can tell.

But does this bring us any closer to solving the mystery?