to view the Lawdragon's - Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

500Lawdragon Q & A with:Jonathan StreeterbY John rYanIt’s always nice to go out – or at leastmake a career change – on top, which defines therecent professional life of Jonathan Streeter. The newDechert partner was the government’s trial counselagainst Galleon Group head Raj Rajaratnam, the centerpieceof U.S. Attorney for the Southern District ofNew York Preet Bharara’s highly publicized campaignagainst insider trading. Rajaratnam received an11-year sentence for netting tens of millions of dollarsfrom illegal trades.As an assistant U.S. attorney, Streeter scored otherhigh-profile trial victories, including fraud convictionsagainst the former Duane Reade CEO and CFO, andagainst Ernst & Young partner James Gansman. Healso was the government’s lawyer in the case againstMarc Dreier, who took down his own firm (Dreier LLP)in an epic fake securites scheme that led to a guiltyplea and 20-year sentence.LAWDRAGon: Why did you make the move to privatepractice at this time?JonATHAn STREETER: I had an incredible job at theU.S. attorney’s office, but I felt like I had done everythingI hoped to do there – I was able to work on a lotof great cases. I just felt like it was time for me tomove on to the next challenge.LD: You must have had some options in terms of firmsthat would be interested. Why choose Dechert?JS: I was looking for a place that had two differentthings. Number one was an established practice in thespace I want to work in, but number two was a kind ofentrepreneurial spirit – a place that wanted me togrow my own practice within the law firm. Dechert isthe best of both of those worlds. They have what I doin white collar and securities litigation, but at thesame time it’s a place where they don’t just want meto show up and do the work that’s already there. Theywant me to develop my own practice.LD: Do you think you will have any regrets leaving behinda job that was viewed as something of a public crusader?JS: Well, you know, it’s funny. A lot of criminal defenselawyers think that what they are doing is just as importantas prosecutors because the government is anincredibly powerful force, and there is a great benefitto the public in making sure the government is notoverstepping its bounds. It’s just as important as havingcapable people in the government. I can’t denythat for me an important part of working at the U.S.attorney’s office was the public service part of it. But Idon’t feel any hesitation in what I do now. I had agreat run as a public servant, and I wouldn’t be surprisedif years from now I do something again in publicservice. But I don’t feel any hesitation in what I donow. There is a real social value to it.LD: Given the public’s anger at Wall Street, thereseemed to be a huge desire for a high-profile fraudconviction, as well as a tremendous amount of scrutinyof the Rajaratnam case. What was it like to have allthat pressure?JS: It was a thrill to have all the media attention on thecase. I can’t deny that it was exciting to be able toread about your case in the newspaper every day. And Iwas certainly aware of its importance to the U.S. attorney,that we win the case. The fact that there was somuch media attention, it probably raised the stakescompared to if no one had been watching. But in a lotof ways, we kind of blocked it out when we were in thecourtroom and working on the trial. In terms of theday-to-day pressure, once we got going, I was sofocused on what I was doing, it didn’t alter my courtroomapproach to anything.LD: Media attention aside, what are the challenges ofbringing a complicated financial case like that to a jury?JS: Candidly, it was a little bit easier with this casebecause the facts, the characters and the evidencewere so interesting – we had the wiretaps, colorfulcharacters and witnesses who were prominent people.It was a little bit easier than in other financial fraudcases. But with financial fraud cases generally, youhave to take incredibly complicated subject matter andbreak it down into simple parts. It’s doing that whilealso keeping the subject matter somewhat interestingfor the jury. You have to have a real understanding ofyour audience, what they’re going to understand andnot understand, what you need to really explain andwhat you don’t need to explain.In the Rajaratnam case, we were constantly cuttingand simplifying our evidence. We had six cooperatingwitnesses and only put three on; we had thousands ofwiretap recordings and narrowed that down to 45 thatwe played; we had 40 stock transactions in play at thetrial and used a little less than half in our case. Wekept cutting away to get to the core stuff that we absolutelyneeded to tell the story. We put on the government’scase in about a month, and I was quite proud ofthat.See the full Q&A at www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelights/jonathan-streeter.L A W D R A G O N 110 I s s u e 13Photo by: Laura Barisonzi