   The government is sharpening its newest weapon against white-collar
defendants : the power to prevent them from paying their legal bills.
   And defense lawyers are warning that they won't stick around if
they don't get paid.
   The issue has come to a boil in Newark, N.J., where federal prosecutors
have warned lawyers for Eddie Antar that if the founder and former chairman
of Crazy Eddie Inc. is indicted, the government may move to seize the
money that Mr. Antar is using to pay legal fees.
   The warning by the U.S. attorney's office follows two decisions
by the U.S. Supreme Court last June.
   In those cases, the high court ruled that federal law gives prosecutors
broad authority to seize assets of people accused of racketeering and drug-related
crimes, including fees paid to lawyers before an indictment.
   If the government succeeds in seizing Mr. Antar's assets, he could
be left without top-flight legal representation, because his attorneys
are likely to quit, according to individuals familiar with the case.
   A seizure also would make the case the largest -- and one of the
first -- in which lawyers ' fees have been confiscated in a prosecution
unrelated to drugs.
   "The people who suffer in the short run are defendants, but the
people who suffer in the long run are all of the people, because there
won't be a vigorous private bar to defend the Bill of Rights," says
Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal defense attorney who says he has turned down
a number of cases to avoid possible fee seizures.
   Mr. Antar is being investigated by a federal grand jury in Newark, where prosecutors have told him that they may soon seek an indictment
on racketeering and securities fraud charges.
  Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law,
or RICO, the government has the authority to seek to freeze or seize a
defendant's assets before trial.
  According to individuals familiar with Mr. Antar's case, prosecutors
issued their warning this week after one of Mr. Antar's attorneys asked
whether legal fees might be subject to seizure.
  In a letter, prosecutors told Mr. Antar's lawyers that because
of the recent Supreme Court rulings, they could expect that any fees collected
from Mr. Antar may be seized.
  Prosecutors have told Mr. Antar's attorneys that they believe
Mr. Antar's allegedly ill-gotten gains are so great that any money he
has used to pay attorneys derives from illegal activities.
  Therefore, they said, the money can be taken from the lawyers
even after they are paid.
  Justin Feldman and Jack Arseneault, attorneys for Mr. Antar,
both declined to comment on the matter.
  In Newark, U.S. Attorney Samuel A. Alito said, "I don't think
there's any legal reason to limit forfeiture of attorney 's fees to drug
cases."
  Mr. Alito said his office "just responded to an attorney's question
about whether we would go after attorney's fees, and that is different
from actually doing it, although we reserve that right."
  Mr. Antar was charged last month in a civil suit filed in federal
court in Newark by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  In that suit, the SEC accused Mr. Antar of engaging in a "massive
financial fraud" to overstate the earnings of Crazy Eddie, Edison,
N.J., over a three-year period.
  Through his lawyers, Mr. Antar has denied allegations in the SEC
suit and in civil suits previously filed by shareholders against Mr. Antar
and others.
  The SEC has alleged that Mr. Antar aimed to pump up the company
's stock price through false financial statements in order to sell his
stake and reap huge profits.
  Mr. Antar, the SEC said, made more than $60 million from the
sale of his shares between 1985 and 1987.
  The Justice Department has emphasized that the government's fee-forfeiture
power is to be used sparingly.
  According to department policy, prosecutors must make a strong
showing that lawyers ' fees came from assets tainted by illegal profits
before any attempts at seizure are made.
  Still, criminal defense lawyers worry that defendants are being
deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and a fair trial if
the government can seize lawyers ' fees.
  They also worry that if the government applies asset-forfeiture
laws broadly, the best defense lawyers will be unwilling to take criminal
cases unless they are assured of being paid.
