Mr. Meissner challenged Mr. Cockren's fitness to serve on the panel because of Sonnenschein Nath's extensive relationships with brokerage houses. NASD rules state that any lawyer whose firm receives more than 10 percent of its annual revenue in the prior two years from the securities industry cannot be considered a public arbitrator. But unless law firms disclose the sources of their revenue, it is impossible to determine if such conflicts exist......... .......................Mr. Meissner's challenge, saying that the arbitrator had done a "conflict check" with respect to the brokerage firms that were involved in the case. But Mr. Meissner learned through an extensive search that one client of Mr. Cockren's firm was the parent company of a firm being sued in the case. He presented the evidence to NASD and, on Dec. 9, 2005, Mr. Cockren withdrew from the panel. Read more from Gretchen Morgenson's Article below...