Legal perspective: once defense counsel to celebrity clients, Howard Weitzman takes new approach to law career - People - Interview
In 1995, Weitzman left a 30-year legal career to join Universal Studios, where he served as executive vice president of corporate operations. He resigned three years later; and engaged briefly in managing startup technology firm Massive Media Group, which shut down in late 2000. In November, he returned to his law practice, becoming a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP’s LA. office.
Question: Why return to the practice after more than six years on the corporate side?
Answer: I just got bored. I was an entrepreneur in both spirit and practice from the time I got out of law school. I had my own firm, I dealt with high profile cases that required decision-making skills and thinking on your feet. In the large corporate world, decision-making is more difficult because there are a number of constituencies you have to deal with. You have to have more patience than I had, and you have to have the fortitude to be able to play the politics involved with corporate life. It’s just a reality. And I’m probably not the most political person in that situation.
Q: What is the difference between serving in the corporate versus the legal world?
A: In the corporate world, you really have to deal with getting the most you can out of the people who run the various businesses underneath you. It’s really a skill set of managing individuals. I think the meetings tend to be longer than they should or could be.
Q: Do you think of yourself as a celebrity lawyer?
A: I’ve been fortunate over the years to represent some of the most high profile cases and personalities. I definitely don’t look at myself as a celebrity. I’ve had many clients say to me, “The only reluctance I have in hiring you is that you’re a celebrity lawyer. Will I get more publicity?” My response is, “No. If you’re not a celebrity walking in the door, and it’s just another case, with all due respect to the media, they’re not interested. It’s just another case.”
Q: You were initially retained in the O.J. Simpson case, only to step down.
A: I didn’t want to have anything to do with that case for fairly obvious reasons. You had a judge who was star-struck, you had lawyers who played to the camera, you saw all the negatives in lawyers’ personalities. There are people whose opinions are that the wrong verdict was arrived at in that trial. I am one who holds that opinion.
Q: What is your take on the Robert Blake case?
A: If I were representing Mr. Blake, I would talk less and evaluate the evidence more. You’ve got Harland Braun (Blake’s attorney) out there criticizing when he’s told us he’s still got to read 35,000 pages of discovery. You have to wait and see what the evidence is. The District Attorney has made a charge and an arrest for murder. They either have the evidence, or they don’t.
Q: How do you feel about cameras in the courtroom?
A: The Simpson case alerted the system, and probably the public, to the dangers of cameras in the courtroom. I don’t think there should be cameras in the courtroom. I think the people who say cameras should be there because the public has a right to know totally miss the issues. That’s just created so someone can sell time, as an entertainment vehicle. There is no newsworthiness to real time reporting of what goes on in the courtroom. That’s just baloney, in my opinion. And it changes the landscape of what takes place in the courtroom. Anybody who thinks lawyers, judges and witnesses aren’t aware of the cameras and that it doesn’t have some impact on them is being disingenuous or naive. The reality is it changes it all.
Q: How has media coverage of high-profile cases changed over the years?
A: Cable really changed the landscape. It required more of an entertainment mix to draw the viewers in. De Lorean was interesting because it was the first time something was covered day in and day out by the media. It was a change in the way television news reporting was done.
Q: Do you think courtroom drama is out of control?
A: It’s totally out of control. Most people can’t say no to the cameras. The media plays it up for entertainment purposes. It makes good business sense. if I can get somebody on camera to say something outrageous, then great. They can promo it and sell more ads. But I’m not so sure you do the client any good that way. And it really shouldn’t be about the lawyer.
Q: And now you’re out of criminal defense.
A: I do virtually no criminal defense anymore. Not to say I wouldn’t do it if the case came along, but I’ve been there, done that. Now it’s straight business litigation and transactions. Partnership disputes, corporate issues dealing with shareholder lawsuits. I’ve been involved in mergers and acquisitions. I’ve done some labor disputes and disputes in litigation, real estate matters.