Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Hiring Gorelick; John in Carolina from 2009
Topic Started: Apr 7 2011, 08:10 AM (808 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
including the likely need to ask
this Court to resolve disputes such as requests for information that may be irrelevant or
otherwise improper once the motions are decided and attempts to depose witnesses who
may have no knowledge of the issues,
if any, that survive a ruling on the motions. [/b]


Quote:
 
After full
ventilation of the viability vel non of the complaint, we will all be in a much better
position to evaluate how much, if any, discovery to allow.”).


IOW, quite possibly the next phase of the Gorelick strategy will be to limit both the number of those
who can be deposed, as well as the subject matter.




ETA: POSTER COMMENT from 2008:

Quote:
 
I agree with ya all. But let me just say the following. Gorelick knows what she is doing and does things for a purpose. One should always look out for the attack from the cornered animal. We do not know how the judge will rule so there is always that defendant hope until a ruling comes through. But I think gorelick and all the defendants expect to lose.


It would follow that have a plan, and weren't surprised by or unready for the decision which came down.

Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 02:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=f285e9b7-ee61-42e9-b2d4-cd7744c9a40d#c1551d94-9442-4406-9ed9-af8327dd6ef4

Fact Finder
posted 9/02/09 @ 3:11 AM EST
Why lax matters.

(snip)

Here is what Duke fears: Presssler's lawsuit will pry open the veil of secrecy that the Brodhead administration has woven around the lacrosse case, protecting itself and its officials from several lawsuits. Pressler's very able lawyers will take depositions from President Brodhead and former trustee chair Bob "Wachovia" Steel among others, and then use these depositions to try to trip someone up on the witness stand. Probably before a jury. And one revelation will follow another. In this lawsuit. In others.

Less than an hour after the appeals court decision Tuesday, Duke's current mouthpiece, the ubiquitous Michael Schoenfeld had prepared a written reply. He used PR words, but here is what he meant: Duke would continue to spend millions to fight Pressler and other lax plaintiffs, screw the fact that our budget is tight and must be reduced because of losses in our endowment. Screw too that the university is acting like a used car salesman caught tampering with the odometer, squiggling any way it can to escape the mess of its own making, the concept of justice be damned.

Fact Checker will provide the first light into Duke's immense legal defense costs in all the litigation -- facts and source provided to the Chronicle which has shamefully failed to publish them. These are from the 2007-08 school year, outdated now but they are the latest; they are also from a time before the various lawsuits heated up into more costly phases.

One law firm, which has changed its name repeatedly but we'll use Wilmer Hale, billed Duke $1,966,288 for fees alone, in this one year alone. I believe there are extra costs beyond this, like secretarial help, xerox copies, phone calls, filing of documents.

Duke is using Wilmer Hale partner Jamie Gorelick, a controversial political operative who bills in the range of $800 to $1,000 an hour at this 1,100 lawyer firm headquartered in Washington. Gorelick was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, moving over to be the extraordinarily well paid vice chair of Fannie Mae. She famously pronounced this mortgage giant which continues to teeter to be "managed safely" and could not have been more wrong.

It's a mystery why Duke retained her or Wilmer Hale, for its website reveals no expertise in matters that Fact Checker sees in the various lax lawsuits. Perhaps the connection was made through its work for Boston Scientific Corp, headed by Duke's former trustee chair Peter Nicholas. Or perhaps through Morgan Stanley, headed by Duke trustee John Mack. Or perhaps we saw sterling work for other Wilmer Hale clients: The Wall Street criminal Ivan Boesky. The polluting, homophobic Enron. Several Swiss banks accused of profiting from the Holocaust. And, oh yes, the crown jewels of German industry, electronics giant Siemens AG and heavy weapons maker Krupp AG accused of forcing Jews to work as slaves during the Nazi era. Welcome aboard new clients Brodhead and Bob "Wachovia" Steel. Enjoy your company in the waiting room.

Beyond Wilmer Hale, other lawyers are lapping up Duke gravy too. Our total bill for lawyers in the 2007-08 academic year was $17,040,989. Three years earlier, before the lacrosse hoax, the total was $4,316,301. No other part of the University budget has exploded so fast, thank goodness.

To illustrate how long this feeding trough will remain open, remember please that Pressler won a decision in April, 2008, for a regular trial and not arbitration. That's 18 months of delay by appeal on this one motion alone -- and Duke plans to appeal again.

Not long ago, Fact Finder discussed the Holocaust with an elderly neighbor. Why, she was asked, should we keep its memory so alive and keep digging into its depravity. Her reply was simple: "We must know."

Her words cut deep.

While not wanting to be accused of equating the hoax with the Holocaust, Fact Finder believes there is an imperative at Duke too. For example: in what was surely one of the most difficult and courageous moments of his years at Duke, President Brodhead, a lifelong educator committed to fostering growth of young people, apologized for his failure, that is, for the way the University had treated (better word: abandoned) its students in their hour of great need.

It was a partial apology: no mention of the firing of Pressler, nor the university's false official statement that he had quit, walking away from his team.

A partial apology. Brodhead did not explain why, for example, he refused at a key moment an urgent plea for a meeting made by the parents of three students facing false indictment and 30 years in jail. What was going through Brodhead's head when he said no, what were his reasons?

We also must know what our board chairman thought. He after all, stood by silently listening to Brodhead read his apology, never issuing his own nor one on behalf of the Trustees whom Steel had once said signed off on every move and supported Brodhead.

After Duke gave up lying about Pressler's having quit, Steel was the cut-throat who said the coach had to be run out of Duke despite his distinguished record, in order to clear the decks. Why didn't we extend this logic: Brodhead and Steel himself would be gone.

(snip)

We must remember too, one of the most serious allegations against Steel. Unproven, Fact Finder must stress. Did Steel really think the best course for Duke University was to have Dave, Collin and Reade convicted, leaving them only an appeal to salvage their lives and avoid 30 years in jail. If this proves to be true, it is dastardly.

The unfinished business of the lacrosse hoax also includes fulfillment of a Brodhead promise.
He said he would convene a national conference of colleges and universities, to explore how they treated students charged with crimes and how Duke's system might be changed. Fact Finder can only assume Duke's lawyers told Brodhead to cool it, lest he uncover and confirm aspects that augur against Duke. Pressed on this issue 14 months ago, Burness exploded.

Fact Finder sees a new mandate in the new academic year, repeated 1,730 times: freshmen join all other students in being subjected to a judicial system that our president says needs repair. A system that does not treat them fairly, nor with dignity, nor with protection of their rights.

Thank you for reading Fact Finder today.

To the buffoons who always ask what my son's lax number is: I have no connection whatsoever with lacrosse or anyone who plays it. If I did, I would be proud.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Said by a trustee of a Hawaiian school when it was involved in a monumental legal battle with the state over how the trustees had overseen the school's trust; but applicable, I think, with only the change of a couple of words, also to Duke:


Quote:
 


"It appears to me that we have engaged a battery of attorneys to declare "war" with the state attorney general. . . It would appear to me that we as trustees--in the interest of protecting the trust--would want to cooperate in every way with the attorney general to determine the truth. And, if in the investigation of these allegations, we find that there have been transgressions...we would want to know and do what is necessary to correct it.

"Are we engaging the services of these attorneys to protect the legacy or to protect trustees?"



Why does Duke not want to cooperate in order to find out the truth of what occurred during the lax case, and how to remedy the situation so that it cannot happen again?

Where is the Duke committee to investigate what happened?

Where is the Duke report to the trustees and the alumni on what happened?

Why is Duke hiring the likes of Jamie Gorelick if Duke is really interested in finding out the truth?

How much of Duke's money is being spent to perhaps defend the trustees, instead of the Trust?
(And is this a proper use of the Trust's funds?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Legally, who is Jamie Gorelick's client?

Ans: The one who is paying her bills.

IOW, she has Duke for a client.

NOT the trustees.

NOT Brodhead.

NOT the Admin.

"Duke" is the university, the tax-exempt charitable trust, the beneficiaries, the stakeholders.

Any conflict of interest between the defendants in the present suits and Gorelick's client, MUST
be resolved IN FAVOR OF THE CLIENT.

And if that means paying off a settlement NOW or agreeing to settlement terms NOW, no matter
how embarrassing or damaging to the trustees or members of the Admin,


then that is the course of action she must ethically recommend.

Lawyers who put the interests of trustees ahead of those of beneficiaries must be told to collect their fees from the soon-to-be ex-trustees, and not from the trust estate or its insurance carrier.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.johnincarolina.com/

Thursday, January 29, 2009
More re:Who should worry about Duke/Durham discovery?

Anon @ 10:05 commented re: Who should worry about Duke/Durham discovery?

Anon’s comments are in italics; my responses are in plain.

Anon began - - -

I look forward to discovery but I have never worried that it wouldn't happen.


While they stressed the court will set limits on what can be asked during discovery, every attorney I’ve talked to – all with no direct involvement in the lawsuits, but all of whom are following the suits – has said Plaintiffs’ attorneys will be able to question in all the major areas in which the Plaintiffs’ are requesting discovery.

I do hope those who should be worrying that discovery will happen are but I'm not sure they realize the gravity of their situation yet.


[What limits will the court set on discovery??? For example no questions of Tara Levicy or about her work, because that belongs,
according to Judge Beaty, in a medical malpractice suit--which the plaintiffs don't have standing to bring?
Will the court greatly narrow the risk of exposure for the defendants?]


I think some do have a sense of the gravity of their situation. Duke’s hiring Jamie Gorelick was, IMO, an admission on Duke’s part that its situation is so grave that the best legal counsel money can buy won’t be enough. So it hired a person known for her political influence rather than her knowledge of an extremely complex area of law.

If attorneys in Duke’s Counsel’s office went along with a charade involving dissembling to students, parents and the court regarding the university’s alleged secret and illegal release of protected (FERPA) student personal information, then I’d think those attorneys know they face grave consequences from the court and the State Bar.

[They needn't worry now. Will questions about these issues even be allowed to be asked, or will the judge close these areas off?]

Keep in mind that of all the terrible things Nifong did, it was the act of lying to the court that landed him in jail.

I think by virtue of their professional training and experiences the police defendants have, or at least should have, a good understanding of the gravity of the claims made against them in the suits.

It seems to me that some, particularly the miscreants at Duke, have gone merrily about business as usual, as if they didn't have a care in the world.

Yes, but a lot of that is posturing. When you can’t/won’t tell your own insurer what happened, you know your situation is very serious even if you keep telling yourself somehow all your influence, loyal alums and billions will get you out of things with “just a few scrapes.”

Clearly they want everyone to forget about it. They want to silence their critics and MoveOn but even if that happened it wouldn't matter. The lawsuits are what they should be worried about. Discovery should scare the peedoodle out of them.

I get sufficient satisfaction knowing they are worried or they will be at some point. So many and so much will be exposed I should feel sorry for them but I don't.

Of course they want to move on. They did terrible things.

Thanks for your comment.
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 03:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Lest there be any doubt, Plaintiffs affirmatively state there is more: detailed factual allegations, more audio files, and more video files available to Plaintiffs to allege additional facts that the Court may deem necessary to cure any deficiency of pleading in the Amended Complaint."


Evidently the Court was not any more interested in seeing what Ekstrand could present in support of his allegations
of conspiracy, than was Nifong in seeing evidence of innocence.

The court complained of the length of the complaints--did it want 47 more pages detailing emotional distress (just
one page for each plaintiff) and more audio and video files to support the conspiracy complaints?

Could it have at least asked for them, instead of chiding the attorneys for the length of their complaints?

After all, the court took THREE YEARS to make up its mind about these things...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2008_06_15_archive.html


I don’t know Jack other than through comments Jack’s made here, including one particularly memorable one in which Jack said, in effect, that Duke as many people remember it had been “stolen,” and everyone would do well to recognize that.

Here, as I recall it, is the essence of Jack’s comment:

"Duke under Dick Brodhead is nothing like Duke under Terry Sanford. That’s why you have the faculty Group of 88 and Nifong and DPD framing students.

I gives me no joy to say this, but you need to see the truth. Sorry if it offends you, but the Duke you knew was stolen by the left".


That was a year or two ago.

I didn't hear from Jack again until yesterday.

I’m going to respond here to some of what Jack's just said.

Jack’s comments are in italics; mine are in plain and directly address Jack.

I have not posted here in quite some time, but I continue to follow events in the aftermath of the lacrosse scandal. I have no connection to Duke University, but I have four children in and around college age (one 2007 graduate, two enrolled and a HS junior) and am very much interested in the quality, direction and agenda of our Higher Education Establishment.

Watching events unfold in Durham over the past two years, my reaction has been similar to many – disbelief to dismay, outrage and anger.

Unlike you, I did not feel the pain and sorrow in seeing my alma mater abdicate all vestiges of decency, the abandonment of the kind of values that has made our society the most decent and caring in history.


Most at Duke have not abdicated “all vestiges of decency” so much as they’ve just not gotten involved. Their lack of involvement, IMO, reflects both a failure to appreciate what’s at stake and a reluctance to take a public stand that goes counter to the stand of the powers that be.

I don’t find it hard to understand that many Duke people would acknowledge Crystal Mangum told lies that had terrible consequences; whisper to friends that Duke’s BOT, President Brodhead, “Dick’s senior team,” and “a lot of the faculty botched it;” and wish no other involvement with the Duke Hoax.

If I were working at Duke as an office secretary, a med tech or at one of the libraries, I'd very probably be one of those people.

But I contrast those Duke people with others - for example, Duke’s Law School faculty – from whom by virtue of their professions and positions we had a right to expect more of.


With Mike Nifong’s public conduct so outrageous that just days after he began speaking publicly about the lacrosse, the State Bar opened a file in anticipation of ethics violation charges being brought against him, we had a right to expect the Duke Law School faculty would speak out about the district attorney’s travesties.

But for months, none did. Even now, only a few have.

What can you say about a law school faculty which remains silent when Reade Seligman is threatened by racists shouting “Justice will be done, rapist” outside the Durham County Courthouse and “Dead man walking” inside Judge Ron Stephens’ courtroom?

A law school faculty which remains silent in such circumstances certainly loses a good deal of its “vestiges of decency.”

How does such a faculty preach and teach due process and professional ethics to its students?

I'm sorry to acknowledge that Duke's Law School faculty, with a few commendable exceptions, was typical of almost all groups at Duke who by profession and position were responsible for upholding right and truth, but instead abdicated their responsibilities in the face of the lies and injustices that are the Duke Hoax, the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up.

Even worse than those groups are the faculty Group of 88 and others supporting them who made an already dangerous situation more dangerous, and those administrators who've promoted some of the 88 to positions of greater responsibility.

(snip)

Richard Brodhead and the BOT’s behavior since the scandal indicates they no longer feel they must go about their work under the cover of darkness. The appointments at Duke are nothing more than a middle finger at Duke’s traditional, if ignorant, constituencies.

Lee Baker’s appointment is the latest, and among the more important steps the radical left has taken to ensure their philosophy, their brand of “thinking” gets the seal of approval in a Big Brand Elite University. Duke is not at all elite, it has become elitist.


I don’t doubt Duke’s “radical left” did its part to encourage Dean Lee Baker’s appointment. But it was President Brodhead, top administrators and key trustees who made the appointment possible.

I don't doubt you agree that's much more troubling than if only Duke's radical left was responsible for Baker's appointment.

I take no pleasure in the disappointment you must feel for an institution that evidently had such an important part in your education, your development and personal identity, but the benign neglect of the alumni cannot be discounted as a contributing factor.

I agree with you 100%.

Like I said before – Duke has been hijacked, and you wanted to believe that all is not lost. Perhaps not, but for the past year, the enemy within Duke has been consolidating its position. Not that Bob Steele, Richard Wagoner or Melinda Gates are doing anything to stop it, not the impudent snots at the Chronicle. So what is it you think you can do?

I agree those with a vested interest in protecting themselves and hiding what was done to “throw them under the bus” have been consolidating their position.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re stronger relative to the forces at work to expose them and what they did.


Within the last year the power balance between those seeking to hide the truth and those seeking to get it out there, while still weighted in favor of those wanting to hide the truth, has in recent months begun shifting in the direction of those seeking to get the truth out there.

You may doubt that, but those called “The Duke Defendants”in the suit brought by attorney Bob Ekstrand on behalf of 2006 lacrosse team members Breck Archer, Ryan McFedyan and Matthews Wilson don't.

After two years of spending large sums to promote MoveOn.Duke and then suggesting the plaintiffs didn't have much of a case, Duke turned around and hired Washington attorney and Democratic operative Jamie Gorelick this past February just weeks after it got a look at Ekstrand's suit complaint filing.

The Duke defendants already had tremendous legal firepower. Why retain Gorelick?

Because Duke knows legal firepower may not be enough to successfully defend itself against the suit and its consequences.

Gorelick's hiring proves those trying to push the truth out there are growing stronger.

Thanks for commenting.

And don’t worry that I take offense at what you say. Your genuine care comes through.

John
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


MGIC INDEMNITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lawrence I. WEISMAN, Thomas P. Dunn, L.N. Nevels, Jr., and
Henry K.F. Kersting, Defendants-Appellees.

Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 13, 1986.
Decided Oct. 27, 1986.
As Amended Dec. 5, 1986

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/803/803.F2d.500.85-2792.85-2328.85-1827.html

Their function defines their responsibility. They owed a duty of loyalty to the insurer as well as to the insured. That duty of loyalty included a duty of candor. A lawyer like a trustee is bound to higher standards than the morals of the marketplace. Cf. Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 164 N.E. 545 (1928) (per Cardozo, J.). Anyone paying legal bills would want to know, and would be entitled to know, that the lawyers being paid were the very lawyers who started the suits they were now being compensated to defend. The alleged failure to disclose their activity would have been a breach of the fiduciary duty Weisman and Dunn owed MGIC.

[I submit that the attorneys for the Duke Trust owe a duty of candor to the beneficiaries of the trust and its stakeholders; that it is they, and not the trustees (as of the moment) who are paying the legal bills--and who is the general "client" represented by the attorneys.]

True, the policy MGIC had issued to the directors permitted them to select their own counsel, subject to MGIC's appeal. True, MGIC had "the right to associate itself in the defense." See Okada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 795 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.1986). But by these provisions of the policy MGIC did not bargain away its right to expect loyalty from the lawyers it was paying. Professional ethics requires of a lawyer a decent sense of responsibility to all those he serves.

The Duke beneficiaries did not forfeit their right to receive loyalty from lawyers who are hired to defend the Trust, just because the Trustees are empowered to act for them in conducting general business.


Gorelick and the other attorneys owe no duty to Brodhead, or to Steel, or the other trustees, because these are not the clients being represented. In effect, the beneficiaries of the Duke Trust are the ones being represented. They are therefore owed not only "candor", as above; but also representation that is in their best interest, even if that conflicts with the best interests of individual trustees.

(Meaning, that a settlement which serves only to protect the interests of Brodhead and Steel, etc., while dissipating the Duke funds to an excessive degree, may be said not to serve the best interests of the client, Duke, but only those of the named Trustees.


And that would be an ethics violation on the part of the attorneys; as well as a breach of duty on the part of the Trustees who approved such a settlement.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008

Deferring Discovery

(snip)

Duke's lead attorney, Jamie Gorelick, claims that the University should be trusted to preserve all relevant documentation, and that having attorneys for both sides get together to begin the process at this stage would be premature. First, she says, she wants the court to rule on the motion to dismiss.


Indeed, it seems as if Gorelick wants to delay the start of discovery for a considerable period of time. (snip)

In other words, Duke wants the University to receive a free pass on discovery issues not only until the motions to dismiss in this case and the Ekstrand lawsuit are ruled upon—but until the court also deals with the motion to dismiss in the lawsuit filed by the three falsely accused players against Durham. Duke, of course, is not even a party to this lawsuit.

(snip)

Take the most vulnerable of the Duke defendants, Tara Levicy. Among other items relating to Levicy is the Gottlieb brief, which essentially blames the entire initiation of the case on the former SANE-nurse-in-training. Is it really Duke's position that nothing in a deposition of Levicy (which would surely include the heretofore wholly unrevealed questions of how much her supervisors knew about her performance, and what she said in a June conference with Nifong) would "not affect" the motion to dismiss, regarding the conspiracy claim?


Or take the e-mails of the senior administrators of the Brodhead administration, especially those penned by guilt-presuming Larry Moneta. Is it really Duke's position that an examination of Moneta's files, or a deposition of Moneta himself, would "not affect" the motion to dismiss, regarding the conspiracy claim?

[Apparently Judge Beaty agreed with Gorelick, because he dismissed all claims against Moneta without even allowing
discovery of his files or a deposition. ]



Update: A reader points out another anomaly in the Duke response. Gorelick demands that discovery (and, indeed, even convening a 26(f) conference) must be deferred until all motions to dismiss (including the motion to dismiss the suit filed by the three falsely accused players) are decided. But that motion, which solely involves non-Duke actors, raises legal issues (namely immunity and qualified immunity) that are wholly irrelevant to the unindicted players' suit against Duke. What possible rationale, then, exists for Duke to avoid even scheduling a discovery conference while a judge evaluates various constitutional claims that have nothing to do with any issue at hand in the lawsuit against Duke?
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 09:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

Trustee Conflict of Interest in a lawsuit

1 ) The trustees of a charitable, tax-exempt trust (which Duke is) may be required to personally repay the trust if they fail to prevail in a lawsuit. This sets up a conflict of interest for the trustees; as they may personally be liable for millions in defense costs, depending on the outcome of a suit. Hence, their personal interest (as opposed to the interest of the trust) may be to prolong a case as long as possible, in hopes of outwaiting and outlasting the plaintiffs; and, should that fail, to then agree upon a huge settlement, the terms of which will clear them of any wrongdoing.

However, their own interest is not under these circumstances the same as the interest of the trust.


Under these conditions, it is not unreasonable that the persons deciding whether or not Duke will prolong its defense and/or agree to large settlement terms should not be the same as those who have a personal financial stake in the outcome.

It would not be unreasonable for the court to be asked to replace such persons with interim trustees,
who will oversee the conduct of the defense and the authorization of such expenditures as may be in the interest of the trust (and its beneficiaries, the students of Duke).

As well, a prolonged (and ultimately unsuccessful) defense, followed by a huge settlement, will also likely raise the insurance premiums Duke will have to pay in the future; which likewise is not considered to be in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust (whose interest the trustees are supposed to protect).

The Trustees have no attorney-client privilege

When a charitable, tax-exempt trust (which Duke is) hires legal counsel, that counsel works for the trust; and his/her sole loyalty must be to the client, which is the trust and ultimately the beneficiary of the trust (in this case, the Duke students). Hence, Jamie Gorelick is legally not working for the interest of the trustees, but of the Duke students.

( If Richard Brodhead and Robert Steel want confidentiality, they are required to hire their own, personal attorneys.) Nothing which is the work product of the trust's attorneys can be withheld from any other trustee, nor from the beneficiaries; because the trustees are not the client and they are not paying for the legal counsel.

The attorney-client privilege exists to protect confidentiality; but there is no need for confidentiality between the attorneys who are representing the interests of the beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries themselves.

Further, successor trustees have the right to view the entire work product of such attorneys.
(I.E., Robert K. Steel cannot pack up boxes of material and carry them off with him to storage.)

"Many people mistakenly think a trust is an entity that, among other things, can own property and hire lawyers. But in the eyes of the law, a trust is nothing more or less than a legal relationship between trustees and beneficiaries. Unlike a corporation or a partnership, for example, a trust does not have a separate legal existence."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/can-jamie-gorelick-clean-up-bps-mess/#more-20214

03 Jun 2010
Can Jamie Gorelick Clean Up BP’s Mess?
By ELIE MYSTAL

(snip)

Do Gorelick and WilmerHale really want to be the lawyers for his company? Isn’t there some white-baby-killing, terrorist Nazi out there who would make for a more sympathetic client right now?

Oh, but the fees, the fees…

Truth is, every top firm was probably fighting tooth and nail for this business. . .

In our world, Wilmer taking this case is a no brainer.

But how is this going to play in the real world? At least when defense attorneys represent maniacal serial killers, they can fall back on the nobility of the legal profession, where everybody is entitled to a competent defense. It might be a lot harder to see the nobility of doing inside-the-Beltway arm twisting on behalf of BP’s best approximation of the Chicxulub meteor.

Even Gorelick’s statement reminds one of the Wizard of Oz’s famous last press conference: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” Will the public buy that “responding to Congressional inquires” is materially different from “advocat[ing] for any position” — especially when responding to Congressional inquiries involves appearing on camera at televised hearings?

Lawyers are always “advocating” for one thing or another; that’s what they get paid to do. BP didn’t just hire WilmerHale to do the clerical work of putting documents in boxes and sending it to Congress; BP hired WilmerHale to help them fight Congress over which documents should be in the box.

[Why did Duke hire WilmerHale (Gorelick)]

And, of course, BP should do that. Who knows where this will end up, but anything short of everybody who works for BP being forced to subsist on a diet of bread and oil for the rest of their days has to be considered a victory. They’ve got to fight where they can, and they should retain the best possible counsel to help them do it.

It’s just a bit interesting that WilmerHale (or any high-profile firm) would want to do that heavy lifting for BP. Wilmer should ask its new clients what happens to your corporate name when it starts spewing up all over the Louisiana coastline.

(snip)



Try substituting "Duke" for "BP" in the above... and ponder why Duke was willing to pay out large sums to
hire WilmerHale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply