Spencer Barasch Is No Longer a Best Lawyer in Dallas

In our May issue, we published our annual “Best Lawyers in Dallas” list. A lawyer named Spencer C. Barasch appears on the list — or he appeared. Another lawyer in town wrote us a letter suggesting that perhaps Barasch did not belong on the list. From the New York Times last year:

A former enforcement official for the Securities and Exchange Commission who was accused of blocking or closing at least three investigations into the activities of the Stanford Financial Group, which the authorities claim was a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, has settled civil charges brought by the Justice Department accusing him of violating conflict-of-interest rules by later representing Stanford before the commission.

John M. Bales, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, announced Friday that the former official, Spencer C. Barasch, who from 1998 to 2005 served as the enforcement director for the S.E.C.’s Fort Worth regional office, had agreed to a civil settlement that would result in payment of a $50,000 fine.

Before we publish the list, which is based on votes from peers, a panel of well-respected lawyers reviews the names, and we check with the State Bar to make sure each winner is in good standing with that organization. Regrettably, Barasch made it through that screening process. Thanks to our vigilant letter writer, the oversight has been corrected.

10 comments on “Spencer Barasch Is No Longer a Best Lawyer in Dallas

  1. Certainly you did not put John V McShane on the new list – he is the WORST – ripped my mother off for over $75,000 on a shady oil deal !

  2. Best Lawyers in Dallas is “based on votes from peers.” Should we demand to see the list of peers that voted for Barasch?

  3. Taking him off the list may be a bit overzealous. As another attorney who’s read a good bit about this, the details of what he’s accused of would certainly not make me less likely to hire him, and it hasn’t caused Andrews & Kurth, one of the most prestigious firms in town, to remove him as a partner. Is D more qualified than the respected lawyers on its own panel, those who voted in its survey, or a prestigious law firm in evaluating whether this settlement makes him any less likely to be among the best lawyers in Dallas? D’s removing him on the basis of this settlement seems a self-indictment of D’s process in choosing the lawyers to put on the list, and implying that this settlement makes him less qualified is a bit irresponsible.

  4. Was he “in good standing” with the State Bar? If yes, and he got the votes….why would he get bumped?

  5. He is a securities lawyer blocked from appearing before the SEC. That makes him useless, but Andrews Kurth won’t fire him and basically admit to malpractice claims they are up against for what was uncovered in the SEC OIG report. Takes a lot to get banned from appearing before the SEC..:that speaks for itself.

  6. Because he knowingly blocked an SEC investigation that ultimately cost 20,000 people their life savings. Barasch knew what Stanford was up to; Stanford’s victims didn’t.

  7. Don’t see where Tim mentioned that as a parameter of the list. Again, in good standing, got voted onto the list by his peers who seem to think differently.