Attorneys for two former senior American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers facing trial for allegedly accepting classified government information are battling the pro-Israel lobby for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. At the outset, AIPAC committed to paying the legal costs for the case, but the attorneys for Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman say AIPAC has not paid any fees since the spring of this year.
In August, a grand jury indicted Rosen and Weissman on charges that they illegally accepted classified information on Iran and other Middle East issues from three government officials over a period of several years.
One of their alleged sources, Larry Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst on Iran, pleaded guilty to leaking information to them and others in October.
The outcome of the trial, scheduled to start in late April 2006, could set far-reaching precedents on how civilians deal with secret information.
AIPAC officials would not comment publicly on the case, but some board members said privately that the organization was concerned that the legal costs were spiraling out of control, which could harm the organization.
Both defense attorneys suggested that the quality of the defense, especially in the area of commissioning outside expertise, could be compromised as a result of the lack of payments.
“AIPAC’s decision to discontinue payments for legal costs threatens the outcome of the case,” Abbe Lowell, Rosen’s lawyer, wrote last month in a letter to Philip Friedman, AIPAC’s general counsel.
Lowell has not been paid since March. Weissman’s lawyer, John Nassikas, has not been paid since May.
“We will continue to represent the interests of our client zealously but in doing so there are matters and costs that we simply will be unable to pursue in the same fashion,” Lowell said in the letter, obtained by JTA.
Sources close to the defense said Lowell was referring to costs associated with the hiring of outside experts to help make the case and to help select a jury. The defense attorneys say they need to pay experts to quash the notion that accepting government secrets is a crime.
The letter came to JTA from someone not directly involved in the case, but who is concerned that AIPAC isn’t living up to its commitment.
Rosen, the former foreign policy chief at AIPAC, and Weissman, its Iran analyst, were fired in March. At that time, fees were estimated to be at least $1 million. In September 2004, AIPAC had pledged to pay the fees.
AIPAC’s senior officials would not comment on the record. But one board member said the organization was trying to balance the needs of the defense with the everyday costs associated with advancing the work of the pro-Israel lobby.
“Any organization has to strike a balance between its commitment to those who have done a service and not over committing what would amount to charitable, voluntary contributions,” said the board member, who asked not to be identified because negotiations were still under way.
AIPAC’s bylaws state that “AIPAC shall, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, indemnify and hold harmless any person who is or was an” AIPAC employee, including legal fees “arising out of or related to AIPAC, its business or affairs.”
The exception is “gross negligence, bad faith, fraud, or willful misconduct or willful breach of such person’s duties and responsibilities in any material respect.”
A Sept. 1, 2004, letter by Lowell and initialed by Friedman, AIPAC’s lawyer, days after the FBI raided AIPAC offices, states: “AIPAC has agreed to pay for the legal representation of its employees with regard to this investigation and any related matters.”
The defendants say they were acting according to their duties at AIPAC.
AIPAC officials would not comment on whether they thought the case involved negligence.
Lowell’s recent letter, dated Nov. 4, said he incurred $993,000 in fees through August of this year. He said he wrote off $300,000 and was still owed approximately $467,000, meaning that so far AIPAC had paid him $227,000.
That does not count costs subsequent to August. One source close to the defense says Lowell’s fees average $80,000 a month.
In October, AIPAC made a onetime final offer of $800,000 in legal fees each to Rosen and Weissman, in addition to fees paid through May, according to sources close to the case. They rejected the offer.
A source close to AIPAC said the $800,000 offer was in addition to an “already significant amount” spent on the defense.
The AIPAC source also said that the organization had included in its calculations “the legal costs of protecting the organization from the consequences of Rosen and Weissman’s behavior.” AIPAC had retained attorney Nathan Lewin to represent the organization in the case.
U.S. prosecutors have made clear that AIPAC as an organization is not a target of the investigation.
Lowell’s office would not comment on the story. Nassikas confirmed that he had not been paid since March, but would not say how much he was owed.
“It creates a serious side issue in frustration,” Nassikas told JTA. “They need fully focused counsel on the lack of merits of this prosecution, and not on who’s paying the bills.”
The case came into the open in August 2004, when the FBI raided the AIPAC offices here.
AIPAC fired the two in March, citing information that arose out of the FBI investigation.
Rosen and Weissman had led the lobby’s aggressive efforts to expose what they believed was the threat Iran posed to Israeli, American and Western interests in the region.
The firing related to a July 2004 conversation the two had with Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler, JTA has reported. Rosen and Weissman allegedly relayed to Kessler classified information that Franklin had leaked to them, regarding reports of an imminent Iranian attack on Israelis and Americans in Iraq.
Franklin, unbeknownst to the AIPAC staffers, was working for the government. Rosen allegedly referred to an “official secrets act” in the conversation with Kessler, which the government contends proves he knew he was breaking the law.
Sources close to Rosen’s defense say he was making an off-hand, joking reference and did not know he was breaking the law.
Lewin, AIPAC’s lawyer in the case, recommended firing Rosen and Weissman after learning of the conversation, JTA has reported.
Making it worse in Rosen and Weissman’s view, AIPAC wanted to attach conditions to the offer of a onetime payment of $800,000.
In its offer, AIPAC wanted Rosen and Weissman to waive any further rights concerning their employment, and to sign a non-disclosure agreement, according to sources close to the defense. Rosen reportedly feels that he is owed more than the severance he got, and both men are eager to clear themselves in the public arena after the trial.
At least one former AIPAC board member and major contributor, Larry Hochberg of Chicago, is trying to rally support for Rosen and Weissman.
Hochberg was driven to act, he said, partly because an AIPAC appeal for extra funds in September 2004 cited the case.
“Your generosity at this time will help ensure that false allegations do not hamper our ability or yours to work for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and a safe and secure Israel,” said the letter from AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr, and Bernice Manocherian, then AIPAC’s president.
Patrick Dorton, AIPAC’s spokesman, said no funds were ever raised specifically for Rosen and Weissman.
“The notion that any funds were specifically raised for this purpose is completely absurd and absolutely untrue,” he told JTA.
But sources close to the defense say $14 million was raised in a campaign that had a $10 million target, and that they were told by top AIPAC officials that the extra $4 million came from supporters of Rosen and Weissman. Dorton disputed this, and said just $9 million was raised in the September 2004 campaign.
Meanwhile some community leaders reacted with concern over the development — and the outing of the controversy.
“There is an organizational responsibility to make sure they have the best defense,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
“What have they been accused of doing? Of working on what they thought were their responsibilities?”
Hoenlein said that he understood that AIPAC had already contributed significant funds to the defense, but suggested that this was a matter best dealt with quickly.
“The lawyers and AIPAC should work it out without it being a public controversy, which is detrimental to the community,” he said.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
