The trial of two former Marsh executives is expected to run intoJune as prosecutors attempt to paint them as criminals, while thedefense contends they were far from it, a defense attorneysaid.

Last week, two former executives with Marsh–William Gilman andEdward McNenney–went on trial before New York Supreme Court JudgeJames A. Yates. Both defendants are being tried without a jury.

Robert J. Cleary, an attorney with the law firm Proskauer Rosein New York City, who is representing Mr. Gilman, told NationalUnderwriter today that he expects the trial to last a number ofweeks, before turning it over to Judge Yates for a decisionsometime in June.

Mr. McNenney is represented by Stephen C. Neal, an attorney fromCalifornia with the law firm Cooley Godward Kronish.

The prosecution has already called four witnesses and more areexpected, he said. Among those who have testified, Mr. Clearynoted, is Kathryn Winter, a former Marsh executive.

Ms. Winter is among four Marsh executives who have already pledguilty to charges that they engaged in defrauding clients bysteering insurance contracts to certain carriers in exchange forlucrative contingent commissions.

Mr. Cleary said prosecutors claim the executives conspired toinflate insurance costs by not releasing the proposals to an openmarket. Instead, the executives are accused of manipulatinginsurance placements to obtain false bids from other carriers.

A 37-count indictment handed up in September 2005 accused eightMarsh executives–including Mr. Gilman and Mr. McNenney–of schemingto defraud, restraint of trade and competition, and grandlarceny.

However, Mr. Cleary said the executive's actions were not actsof fraud, but were aimed at getting the best coverage for theirclients in a very limited market.

“They were the underwriter's worst nightmare,” he said. “Theybeat-up the insurers to get the best coverage for theirclients.”

The broker's actions, he contends, were designed to obtain themost favorable terms and conditions possible for clients in amarket where realistically only one carrier was willing to writethe coverage.

He explained that the broker's practices were aimed atpressuring the insurer seeking the renewal business to believe theycould lose the account if they did not deliver for the client.

“A lot of the facts are not in dispute,” said Mr. Cleary. “Thisis the way Marsh operated and has done business for years andyears.”

Brokers could have turned to the wholesale markets and obtainedcheaper insurance, he said, but that would have meant placementwith carriers with less than “A” ratings and questionablestability, he added.

He said price was not an option that the Fortune 1000 companieswere as concerned with, as they were with carrier stability andbreadth of coverage.

Concerning allegations of phony price quotes from carriers, Mr.Cleary said this was not an issue his client was involved in.

It has been widely reported that the case is being prosecuted byAssistant Attorney General Nina Sas. Numerous calls and an e-mailrequesting information and comment from Attorney General Andrew M.Cuomo's office have gone unanswered.