Robert J. Cleary, an attorney with the law firm Proskauer Rose in New York, who represents Mr. Gilman, said he was satisfied most of the charges were dismissed, but added that he would appeal Judge Yates' guilty verdict on the monopoly charge.

"We're pleased that for virtually all of the charges brought by the attorney general, that Judge Yates saw what I think can only be characterized as the undeniable truth on the evidence that played out in the courtroom...and that is that Bill Gilman was the client's best friend, and the carrier's worst enemy," Mr. Cleary said.

He noted that witnesses, including many who were cooperating with the prosecutors, had testified that Mr. Gilman was "relentless" in fighting to get the best coverage for his clients.

"This was uncontested evidence from the mouths of the prosecution's own witnesses, so it's little wonder that the judge found that, in almost all instances, the prosecution did not prove what it had announced with such great fanfare two-and-half years ago," Mr. Cleary said.

Regarding the lone guilty charge, Mr. Cleary said he was "disappointed the court found that the prosecution did prove that Bill Gilman engaged in anti-competitive conduct."

The charge, Mr. Cleary explained, is a Class E felony--which he described as a "low-grade felony"--carrying a maximum penalty of four years in prison. He said the court can also choose to impose no prison time at the sentencing, which is scheduled for April 30.

Mr. Cleary said he is "puzzled" by the guilty charge, given what was "a mountain of uncontradicted evidence about Bill Gilman's singularity of purpose in getting the best possible deals for his clients."

Noting his intention to appeal that verdict, Mr. Cleary said, "we look at this as round one."

Attorneys for the second defendant, Mr. McNenney, did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Jeffrey Lerner, director of communications for the New York Attorney General's Office, said in a statement that "we are gratified the court found the defendants guilty of felony bid-rigging. Bid-rigging is a serious offense which deprives customers of the benefits of a competitive marketplace, and this office will continue to prosecute it vigorously."