After spending four years under the microscope as he led investigations of some of the world’s biggest banks, Lanny A. Breuer hasn’t lost his swagger.
The 54-year-old prosecutor, with a Rolodex as thick as his Queens dialect, will leave the Justice Department on Friday, emboldened after mounting recent cases against banking giants. But Mr. Breuer, the department’s criminal division chief, also leaves somewhat bruised, having taken criticism for not throwing Wall Street executives behind bars after the financial crisis.
In short, it has been grueling.
“I think he’s handled the pressure very well,” said former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who is now a defense lawyer at Debevoise & Plimpton and has gone up against Mr. Breuer in corporate bribery cases.
For his part, Mr. Breuer highlights his unit’s crackdown on money laundering; the prosecution of Allen Stanford, who was sentenced to 110 years in prison for a Ponzi scheme; and the criminal cases against BP for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Mr. Breuer won perhaps his biggest victory when a Japanese subsidiary of UBS pleaded guilty to manipulating the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. It was the first unit of a big global bank to plead guilty in two decades.
But the Occupy Wall Street crowd, among others, has been critical. When the Justice Department stopped short of indicting HSBC on money laundering charges, choosing instead to press a record fine against the bank, it prompted a tirade in Rolling Stone magazine. A recent “Frontline” documentary featuring Mr. Breuer took aim at his decision not to charge banks that sold toxic mortgage securities before the crisis.
In a recent interview, Mr. Breuer reflected on his crisis cases, his days defending President Bill Clinton from impeachment and his upbringing as the son of Holocaust survivors who settled in Elmhurst, Queens.
The following are edited excerpts from the interview:
When you joined the Justice Department, the nation was reeling and people wanted Wall Street to pay. Back then, didn’t you expect to mount charges against bank executives?
I understand and share the public’s outrage about the financial crisis. Of course we want to make these cases. I can tell you that I assigned the top, most talented lawyers to investigate them, and I know that U.S. attorneys’ offices across the country assigned aggressive prosecutors to these cases as well. I assigned people from my fraud section and my own front office to look at them. And I approached these cases exactly the same way I approached BP, the same way I approached Libor, the same way I approach every case. If there had been a case to make, we would have brought it. I would have wanted nothing more, but it doesn’t work that way.
You agreed to go on “60 Minutes” and “Frontline” to discuss the lack of crisis cases. Why open yourself to such scrutiny?
People have been asking legitimate questions about what happened in the wake of the financial crisis, and they deserve answers. Someone had to go on television to explain the Justice Department’s point of view, and it was appropriate that, as head of the criminal division, I would do it.
But federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere also played big roles in the crisis cases. Why you?
As you point out, the U.S. attorneys don’t report to me, but someone had to tell the public how hard prosecutors across the department have been investigating these cases. I was willing to talk about these issues, to continue to talk about them in the face of criticism, and I’m still willing to talk about them.
Given that you’ve taken a beating on crisis cases, what is your legacy here?
The criminal division is now at the center of criminal law enforcement, both in prosecutions and policy. I don’t think that was ever the case before.
And now you’re leaving. You must feel relieved.
I have very mixed emotions. I’ve loved this job so very much, and I’m incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished over the last four years. But I’m a big believer in change, and I think the timing is about right to move on.
What’s next?
I’m probably going to take a few months off. I’m also going to start talking to law firms and the like and make a decision about where I’m going to go.
The interviews are just a formality, right? The legal world assumes you’re heading back to Covington & Burling.
I love Covington. But I’m going to look at Covington; I’ll look at other firms. It’s certainly not a formality.
For years, you’ve moved in and out of government service, like many prosecutors. Does the revolving door compromise objectivity?
For me, it’s been a pretty effortless transition. I think it’s made me a better public servant, but I think it’s also made me a better private lawyer.
You’ve had no shortage of interesting clients: Roger Clemens, President Clinton, Sandy Berger. What was the most fascinating assignment?
There’s nothing like representing the president of the United States. Representing people like that in general can be gratifying, because you’re getting people often who are incredibly proud of their careers, and you’re dealing with them at their most vulnerable time.
What gear did you assemble from your ex-Yankee client?
Balls, posters — we’ve got a lot of Clemens memorabilia. You need to recognize, I was a lifelong Mets fan.
You were raised in Queens.
My dad was an intellectual. He had been a writer in Vienna before the Anschluss. During my childhood, he was one of the editors of Aufbau, which was a German-Jewish newspaper in New York. In our house there was opera always blaring. It was a very sort of ethnically rich, warm home.
So why did you pursue the law?
I was the mediator in a lot of family issues, even at a young age.
How did your family react to your decision to become a junior district attorney in Manhattan after a pricey education at Columbia?
My parents just never made any money at all. I called up my mother to break the news that her son was not going to a law firm: “Mom, you’ve just got to remember that Cy Vance Jr. — who, of course, is now the D.A. — he’s in the D.A.’s office. And Dan Rather Jr., he’s in the D.A.’s office. And Andrew Cuomo, the son of the governor, he’s in the D.A.’s office.” There was a long pause. And my mother said: “Them? They should go to the D.A.’s office. You? You should go to a firm.”
DealBook: Breuer Reflects on Prosecutions That Were, and Weren’t
This article
DealBook: Breuer Reflects on Prosecutions That Were, and Weren’t
can be opened in url
http://variationsnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/dealbook-breuer-reflects-on.html
DealBook: Breuer Reflects on Prosecutions That Were, and Weren’t
