Most of my blog posts are about random topics that I find interesting in IP law, startups, or whatever. This post is so that in the future, when somebody asks me how I felt about my law school accepting a gift from Lowell Milken, I can rest easy knowing that I publicly announced my disapproval.
UCLA Law recently accepted a gift from Lowell Milken for $10 million dollars, and it has caused a bit of a stir (though shockingly little is actually said about it on the campus itself). For the uninitiated (which I was until very recently), Milken’s brother Michael was the centerpiece of the junk bond scandal in the 80s that resulted in Michael serving 2 years in jail and paying $600 million in fines and restitution on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud. He also paid investors $500 million in a civil suit. Lowell, Michael’s brother, was Michael’s second-hand man in many regards, and he hardly escaped the scandal unscathed – Lowell was charged with securities, wire, and mail fraud, he was barred from practicing before the SEC, and barred from holding a position with any member firm of the NYSE. Lowell, however, was never convicted of anything, as his brother made it a condition of his own plea deal that charges against Lowell be dropped. Many critics seem to think that because Lowell was never convicted of anything, he should be absolved of all blame – that’s one opinion, but I think an equally valid one is that being barred from practicing before the SEC and the NYSE is a pretty bad thing for a securities lawyer.
I don’t object to Lowell Milken’s gift because he is a horrible person – honestly, he’s done some very philanthropic things with the money he made. That money might not have been made through the most ethical of means, but at least he and Michael have put it to some good use in a multi-decade campaign to improve their family’s name. Michael served his time and paid back a tremendous amount of the money he made, Lowell evaded more formal penalties and kept all of his money, so maybe it’s time to stop holding it against them that they were involved in a massive fraud scheme (I’m not saying we should stop holding it against them, but at least there is an argument to be made). Michael’s apparently been extremely generous in donating to cancer research, and Lowell to education, which they both deserve credit for despite their past. I’m definitely not saying that Lowell or Michael are terrible people who should go to jail.
I object to the money because UCLA doesn’t need $10 million badly enough to justify subjecting the professors and students at the law school to scrutiny about our ethics. I don’t want it made more clear to the world that Lowell Milken went to UCLA! He’s barred from practicing in the field he made all his money in because of ethical violations! What’s more, the school now wants to name the entire business law program after him. If I was a part of that program, I would quit immediately and demand it be removed from my transcript. The first thing prospective employers see when they google ‘UCLA business law program’ will now, and forever, be the name of an attorney infamous for being a centerpiece to securities scandal. And in this climate, post-massive-bailout, to name the business law program after this man? MAYBE his transgressions are forgivable as a person, and perhaps his money would be fitting as a general gift, but as an attorney I would not want my reputation tied to a business law program named after a man who was barred from practice before the SEC and NYSE.
Not that it should matter what the amount is, but furthermore, $10 million is nothing speaking longterm. Because we are part of the UC system, 40% of that goes back to the main campus. The rest goes to the now-tarnished business law program. So the law school takes a reputation hit, our business program is forever tied to this man who was barred from practice before the SEC and NYSE, we will likely lose out on professorial talent (both current and prospective), all for about $6 million bucks. Listen, I’m a law student, I KNOW what it’s like to be strapped for money – but I say no thanks to the Milken gift. I’m not even sure the benefits of the money outweigh the costs, and you don’t compromise your ethics as an institution because the economy is tight regardless, especially in the environment attorneys currently practice in where ethics surrounding securities transactions are a constant concern. UCLA is doing no favors to their graduates by naming anything at UCLA after this man, and I respectfully object to accepting the gift.
danielmarkmiller.net 