A little more than two weeks ago, a federal judge sentenced William Lerach to two years in prison for paying kickbacks to investors so they would be on-call plaintiffs for the disgraced and all-but disbarred class action king's securities lawsuits.  That the judge imposed the maximum jail sentence under Lerach's plea agreement really wasn't the big news.  Rather, it was the portrait of honesty and integrity painted by Lerach and his lawyers — and in more than 150 letters of support — that should have made the front page of not only the Wall Street Journal but also The New York Times.

What did get covered coast-to-coast was the on-the-spot on-deadline reporting that Lerach accepted responsibility for his crime in open court.  As most stories noted, Lerach told the judge, "I knew what I did was wrong," going so far as to characterize his transgression as "felony stupid."

Such an admission was quite a mouthful given that Lerach stood accused of playing a substantial and significant role in the conspiracy at his former law firm to bribe would-be plaintiffs to lend their names and portfolios for his securities class action lawsuits. 

As explained in the Los Angeles Times, until a legal change brought on by Lerach's tactics, "the first law firm to file suit could direct the class action and reap the largest legal fees."  That meant "the rules favored firms with a stable of ready-made plaintiffs: people with a few shares in many companies who were willing to immediately" bring the litigation.

By all accounts, Lerach and his former firm, now known as Milberg Weiss, profited handsomely through the scheme — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars even in the government's conservative estimate.  And, to do so, Lerach and his partners only had to pay out a few million dollars for the on-call help needed to keep the gravy train running.  But that story of graft and greed had long ago been told numerous times over when Lerach finally faced up to paying the price.

Nonetheless, there was a blockbuster story in Lerach's sentencing — just not the one that most of the media told or that most of us heard. 

And that story is that, while Lerach was most publicly accepting responsibility in court, he was less publicly deflecting or rejecting any accountability on paper.

In a sentencing memorandum filed three days before his court appearance, Lerach not only watered down his admissions of fault and culpability, but went so far as to spend the vast majority of more than 50 pages touting what various headings noted were his "exemplary character," "continuing value to the community" and "extraordinary life."  Indeed, Lerach's papers came fully equipped with more than 150 letters in support sent in not only by colleagues, friends and family, but also by notables such as consumer activist Ralph Nader, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and former federal and state judges.

But the real kicker was that Lerach not only suggested, but got a law school dean to propose that Lerach "spend his time and talents teaching ... students about the need always to practice ethically and within the stricture of the law."  In other words, Lerach's filing proposed that he be sentenced, in part, to teach legal ethics and professional responsibility at his alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh School Of Law.

Pittsburgh School of Law Dean Mary Crossley's reasoning was even more incredible than all the other countless pages of materials filed on Lerach's behalf, which themselves ridiculously recounted Lerach's honesty, integrity, and generosity with respect to every facet of his life except, of course, the one that consumed the bulk of his time and energy and on which he built his reputation. 

In the letter, the dean rationalized that "[d]espite his serious transgressions — indeed, at least in part because of them ... [m]embers of our legal ethics faculty view the proposed involvement of Mr. Lerach as offering a unique and powerful educational opportunity for our students." 

The dean continued: "Moreover, as many leading legal education experts have concluded, the teaching of ethics is most salient when the topic is the overlay of other legal topics, and so Mr. Lerach's classroom presence would include leading discussions not only of legal ethics and professional responsibilities, but also how those issues come into play with substantive ... areas of the law such as ... securities law...."

Thus, according to the dean, Lerach is uniquely qualified and would be particularly valuable in teaching future lawyers the very subjects that led to his criminal conviction and all-but-certain disbarment.

Then again, perhaps such credentials should not be so shocking.  After all, who hasn't heard, or too often observed, the infamous adage that "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."