I wholeheartedly agree with the recent posts on GM's lawyers by Richard Painter, Richard Zitrin, and Michele Neitz below.
The public outrage over the conduct of GM's lawyers leads me to wonder, however, why there has been minimal criticism of the many in-house attorneys at investment banks and mortgage lenders who knew or should have known that they were securitizing junky mortgage loans. For more on the conduct of attorneys in connection with the issuance of mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"), see my new article.
Is it because no one died as a direct result of the MBS lawyers' (in)actions? It is because the concept of a MBS is more complicated than a faulty ignition switch? Is it because those harmed initially were predominately sophisticated institutional investors such as pension funds? Perhaps the conduct was simply too pervasive to provide us with a ready-made cast of villains or the public wants to move on from the excesses of the subprime era.
Readers' thoughts are much appreciated.