(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday acceptedappeals by law firms that once represented convictedswindler Allen Stanford and were trying to avoid lawsuitsby victims seeking to recoup losses from his $7 billion Ponzischeme.

Former Stanford clients had sued the New York-based firmsChadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose, as wellas Thomas Sjoblom, a lawyer who worked at both.

These lawsuits, brought under state laws, accused Sjoblom ofobstructing a U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission probe into Stanford, and sought to hold Chadbourneand Proskauer responsible as well.

The insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc wasalso sued over its alleged role in Stanford's fraud.

The defendants countered that the federal Securities LitigationUniform Standards Act, or SLUSA, precluded state-law class actionsinvolving alleged misrepresentations made "in connection with" thepurchase or sale of covered securities.

Stanford's fraud had been centered on the sale of certificatesof deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank,and much of the litigation centered on whether these qualified assecurities under the applicable laws.

In October 2011, Dallas federal judge DavidGodbey ruled that SLUSA preempted the state law class-actionlitigation, noting that many investors sold securities to invest inthe CDs, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court ofAppeals revived the cases.

Chadbourne, Proskauer and Willis appealed thatdecision to the Supreme Court, saying that lower courts aresplit on the issue, and that similar lawsuits over BernardMadoff's Ponzi scheme have also been barred by SLUSA.

Stanford is serving a 110-year prison sentence following hissentencing last June. On January 11, a court-appointed receiverproposed that 18,000 of his defrauded investors would receive aninitial $55 million payment on their claims, an average of roughly$3,000 per person.

The court could hear the appeal in April, and if it does wouldlikely issue a decision by the end of June.

The cases are Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troiceet al, U.S. Supreme Court. No. 12-79; Willis of Colorado Incet al v. Troice et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-86;and Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice et al, U.S. SupremeCourt, No. 12-88.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel in New York.Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)