Key Witness in ‘Alliance’ Case Admits Lying Under Oath : Trial: Former attorney Marc Kent spends third day on stand testifying about alleged insurance fraud scheme.

A star government witness who pleaded guilty in the “Alliance” insurance fraud and legal corruption case came under sharp questioning Tuesday from defense lawyers, who portrayed him as a liar out to bury the defendants in order to lighten his own sentence.

Former attorney Marc I. Kent spent his third day on the witness stand in the federal fraud and racketeering trial of eight lawyers--five from the San Fernando Valley--who are accused of manipulating litigation to cheat insurance companies out of at least $50 million in legal fees.

Fourteen other people--eight of them Los Angeles-area lawyers--earlier pleaded guilty in the case, one of the largest criminal prosecutions of attorneys in U.S. history.

Kent, 42, of Granada Hills, who previously implicated the defendants in his direct testimony, admitted under cross-examination Tuesday to lying under oath in the past. Kent, who earlier pleaded guilty to two mail-fraud counts and resigned from the bar, acknowledged that the “quality and results” of his cooperation will determine his sentence.

Kent acknowledged lying in a sworn statement he gave to alleged Alliance leader Lynn B. Stites, the fugitive attorney who disappeared last year shortly before his indictment. The 1986 statement, used by Stites in litigation with his former client, Leonard M. Ross, falsely denied a financial connection between Kent and Stites.

Questioned by defense lawyer Stanley I. Greenberg, Kent admitted the statement “was a lie.”

“It was a lie under oath,” Greenberg said.

“Under penalty of perjury,” Kent added.

Kent also acknowledged he was “clumsy” in failing to admit on a malpractice insurance application several years ago that he had been sued for malpractice.

But he disputed Greenberg’s assertion that he had testified falsely in a sworn deposition several years ago.

Asked during the deposition if he occupied a certain office suite in North Hollywood, Kent said he did not understand what was meant by “suite.”

Kent responded: “Father, husband, friend,” when asked his profession--and pretended not to understand when asked if he was a lawyer.

Asked if he was lying when he said he did not understand, Kent said he merely “was trying to be difficult,” adding: “That’s the kind of tough time lawyers give lawyers.”

“Was it or was it not a lie?” Greenberg asked.

“I was trying to be difficult,” Kent repeated.

“Like now,” Greenberg shot back.

Kent, who could receive up to 10 years in prison on the two mail fraud counts, also acknowledged a provision in his plea bargain giving prosecutors an unusual degree of control over his sentence. The agreement allows him to withdraw his guilty plea if he gets a harsher sentence than prosecutors recommend, and plead to a different charge that would bring the recommended sentence.

But Kent repeatedly denied that the “quality and results” of his cooperation would be equated with convictions. He said the quality would be determined by his truthfulness, and that he was being truthful.

Kent was questioned Tuesday by attorneys for five of the eight defendants. The other three get their turns Wednesday.

The lawyers are accused of infiltrating or initiating at least 10 civil litigations in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties in which insurance companies were obliged to pay defense fees for policyholders who had been sued. The lawyers allegedly used a variety of tactics to prolong and expand the cases to generate fat fees, including paying kickbacks to clients so they would be content not to settle cases; conducting needless depositions, and filing cross-claims against each others’ clients.

The defendants say they were faithful to their clients and did nothing wrong. They claim the real culprits are those who cut deals with the government, like Kent; dropped out of sight, like Stites, or were not charged in the first place.

During much of Tuesday, defense attorneys questioned Kent about intricate details of the suspect litigations, trying to show that the actions of their clients were proper.

The trial, in its third week before a jury of nine women and three men, is expected to last up to four months.