If this were Hollywood, the courtroom would be jammed. Reporters everywhere. Rowdy audience. Distinguished lawyers snarling and prepping to rip each other a new one. Here’s how the scene would start.

Defendant/Investor: “Your Honor, I can’t pay my lawyers.”

Judge: “And why is that?”

Defendant/Investor: “Clawbacks, the search for Ponzi money—your trustee threatened my bank. Now, the bankers are denying access to my accounts.”

Judge: “That is serious. How much did your family draw from Mr. Madoff through the years?”

Defendant/Investor: “One billion, give or take.”

Judge: “Excuse me?”

Defendant/Investor: “One billion.”

Judge: “You can’t scare up a few bucks for legal fees.”

Here’s where it gets tricky. What’s a reasonable response?

Defendant/Investor: “One billion doesn’t go as far as it used to.”

No. Blaming inflation doesn’t work. The audience won’t bite.

Defendant/Investor: “It’s complicated.”

That used to work. Let’s go with it.

Judge: “Okay, it’s complicated. Tell me, how much did you invest in hard dollars with Mr. Madoff?”

Defendant/Investor: “It’s been a while, Your Honor. I don’t remember.”

Judge: “The trustee says you earned forty percent for thirty years.”

Defendant/Investor: “Okay?”

Judge: “I’m just a country lawyer and don’t know much about finance. But fifty-eight thousand turns into one-billion dollars over thirty years at forty percent.”

Defendant/Investor: “Your point?”

Judge: “Contempt.”

Hmm. I’m still not sure about this scene. Maybe we should read Bloomberg’s report about Stanley Chais, Irving Picard, and Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland.

Next week a guest blogger will be joining me at Acrimoney. I also expect to discuss the results of my poll. Please make sure to vote. Here’s the link.