He spent, your Honor — unless you care to rule, he spent — an hour on Thursday making sure that I couldn’t ask a question because he said, “I can’t — I haven’t read it. I haven’t read it. I haven’t read it.” Quite frankly, I would have put it to him on Thursday if anybody at our table had remembered what happened Wednesday. But it was that night, when we went back and reviewed it and found that. I think it’s, in my respectful submission, very important.
The Court: I think the line of questioning about the apparent inconsistency certainly is appropriate. The problem is you are crossing over from asking him questions about did he say this, what did he mean, to saying, “Which one are you lying about?” That crosses over, under our system, into argument. You are free to argue that to the jury —
Mr. Greenspan: I see.
The Court: — at the end of the case. But when you say to him, “Which one are you lying about,” or —
Mr. Greenspan: You can’t do that?
The Court: — “You are a liar, aren’t you?” That crosses over into argument. Similar to the question you asked about, “Isn’t this going to lead the jury to believe that you’re lying?” You are crossing over into the jury’s province there.
Mr. Greenspan: I must tell you only —
Mr. Genson: Is it possible to say, “Which one is true and which one isn’t”? I don’t see why —
Mr. Greenspan: I must say this to you: that, in Britain, the great cross-examiners can’t wait to get to where I just got —
The Court: And —
Mr. Greenspan: — only to find out the rule is you can’t do it.
The Court: You can certainly argue that. I think it is fair to say, “Which one is accurate?” But you are — you have crossed over the line.
Mr. Greenspan: I apologize.
The Court: There is no need to apologize. I am just —
Mr. Greenspan: I am going to work very hard —
The Court: — indicating.
Mr. Greenspan: — to change the rule.
(Laughter.)
Whereas Barbara Amiel described her husband’s defence team as “the help,” for Conrad Black they were the military commanders with whom he entrusted his fate. He once sent Ed Genson a congratulatory note during the trial that read, “That reminded me of the salvo of the Bismarck.” In another case, he sent other words of support to Genson: “That was very strong. Barbara agreed.”
For all of his public outbursts and bombastic nature, in many ways Conrad Black was the ideal client. He was gracious and polite and always respectful in discussions with his lawyers. Only once during the trial, during the testimony of a member of the audit committee, Richard Burt, did Black genuinely panic. Even after the verdict, when Eddie Greenspan was vilified in many quarters, Black resolutely stood behind his chosen general.
Greenspan maintained that the source for the scorching article that appeared in Maclean’s magazine after the trial about his abject performance and “disastrous defence” was Barbara Amiel and not his client. He telephoned his good friend George Jonas to complain that Amiel, who was Jonas’s ex-wife, had only succeeded in increasing her husband’s sentence. Greenspan was confident that the trial judge would read the article and be particularly perturbed by the disparaging comments made about Ed Genson. Genson was by far the judge’s favourite attorney in the case.
How did Conrad Black come to retain “two fat Jewish guys,” as Greenspan amusingly described the Black legal team?
Greenspan first became involved in Black’s tangled legal affairs in November of 2003 as an independent legal advisor. Black had signed a restructuring agreement that essentially removed control of Hollinger International from himself. Greenspan would later refer to this “baffling act” as the single moment that unravelled Conrad Black. He was uncertain if Black had obtained any legal counsel before taking such drastic action.
Black continued to conduct the company’s affairs as if there had been no transfer of control. He maintained that he had been lied to and the agreement was therefore of no force and effect. He had retained a Washington law firm, Sullivan Cromwell, partly on the basis that John Foster Dulles was associated with the firm. Greenspan had flown into Washington before and was aware that one of the airports was named Dulles Airport. “Don’t they name airports after dead people?” he asked Black.
The pressing legal question confronting Black at the time was a subpoena to testify at the SEC. Black’s counsel at Sullivan Cromwell was urging him to testify in Chicago. Greenspan spent a couple of days with Black listening to his version of the facts. While heartened by what he heard, Greenspan was adamant that there could be no advantage for Black in testifying. A testy exchange then ensued with Black’s Washington lawyer.
“I’ve never had a client refuse to testify before the SEC,” he advised Greenspan.
“Well I’ve never agreed to ever have my client testify,” was the brusque reply from Greenspan. Black eventually asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent before the SEC.
Conrad Black’s civil actions continued in the early months of 2004. One of them was disastrous. In Delaware, the sale of Hollinger International assets to Barclays Bank in England was halted in Commercial Court. Black’s credibility was shredded by the presiding judge, Leo Strine. Black’s confidence in Sullivan Cromwell was gone and he was ready to bring on new counsel to represent him. By this time a grand jury had been established to proceed with a criminal indictment against Black. Criminal charges were a virtual certainty.
Black had watched the Iran Contra hearings on television and was particularly enthralled with Oliver North’s lawyer, Brendan Sullivan. On the strength of that sole appearance, Black selected him as his new attorney. Sullivan agreed to take on Black’s file.
On March 19, 2004, Conrad Black met Sullivan in Palm Beach, Florida, to retain him to handle his civil and criminal matters. Greenspan was linked to the meeting by speaker phone. During the discussion, Sullivan told Black that he never had a client go to jail. Greenspan later commented that either Sullivan was lying or he was not a criminal lawyer. However, if Sullivan’s claim was true, Greenspan promised to send him all of his clients.
Sullivan’s firm was hired; the Palm Beach meeting was the only time that the two men ever met. Greenspan spoke to him a few times, and all of Black’s contact occurred with lawyers at the firm who made few critical decisions without first checking with Brendan Sullivan.
Greenspan had considerable misgivings about one law firm representing Black on both his civil and criminal matters. During discovery, it would be impossible for the law firm to block disclosure of a document connected to the criminal case. Greenspan told Black that having a civil firm acting on both ends of his case was “nuts.”
A competition began among law firms for the millions of dollars at stake in Conrad Black’s civil file. They wooed him with highly sophisticated demos and PowerPoint presentations. Black attended each of the presentations on his own and regularly reported back to Greenspan. Greenspan was personally
