Court decision was misinterpreted

The Times editorial on former investment banker Frank Quattrone’s appeals court victory (“Fat and happy justice,” March 28) misinterpreted the court’s decision. The decision stated: “We cannot confidently say that if a rational jury was properly instructed, it is clear to us beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have convicted Quattrone.” The court did not say, as your editorial claimed, that the “government would have won its case on the evidence.”

The editorial also claimed that in both the Quattrone and Andersen cases, employees were urged “to destroy documents in compliance with established company policy, just before planned government investigations.”

Quattrone sent his e-mail six months after he learned of the investigation, which focused on a different division of the company and which never resulted in Quattrone or anyone in his division being subpoenaed or interviewed. His e-mail endorsed his colleague’s reminder for his division to comply with the company’s document retention policy, which specifically required saving -- not destroying --documents sought in litigation or by a subpoena.

KENNETH G. HAUSMAN

San Francisco

Hausman is Quattrone’s attorney.