Sons, Sam, and Horn, L.L.P.: Brady Case LEGAL ISSUES Only

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,932
Balboa Towers
Wallach back to work.

I think Kessler is rebounding well as the argument is drawing to a close. After Parker and Chin insinuate their issues with the phone destruction, science, and other facts, Kessler does a pretty good job getting into the retrieval of email/texts, Brady's privacy concerns.

This was my point on using Kessler. Going into it I think a lot of us had questions if that was the best approach particularly if the underlying facts wouldn't be much of an issue. He fumbled at times where a seasoned appellate specialist may not have, but much of that was from the unexpected leading factual questions. I think he does a good job recovering. Maybe the judges don't care, but I do think there is something beneficial to the attorney that was there from the beginning making the factual arguments. He is able to get in a few "I was there and here's what happened" that an appellate attorney wouldn't have been able to. It also comes off more genuine, I think, when he says that he has a lot of evidence on evident partiality that he would get into if remanded.

I'm not saying Kessler was fantastic, but I think the transcript reads better than the negative implications coming from beat reporters on Twitter. Just as WBV said before, wait until the transcript comes out to judge the performance.

Edit:
P 56: (referencing Paul, Weiss notes) "That is a complete misstatement Your Honor. I don't blame Mr. Clement; he wasn't there. So, I was there. Here is what the truth is..."
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
I've dinged myself on something like that after argument. I'd have to see the exact exchange and review the record to see if it would warrant it.

And, just to be perfectly honest about it, Clement doesn't have to guard his credibility as much as a younger unknown lawyer does.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,491
Hingham, MA
Yeah, it was a repeat of a flat out lie by the NFL. I would like to think that the judges have familiarized themselves with the record and realize what Clement said was a steaming pile of crap. If the NFL gets away with this railroading it will be nothing short of an incredible feat on their part. As Ron Burgundy said about the whole wheel of cheese, at this point I wouldn't even be that upset - just amazed. Just unbelievable that they could pull off this magic trick.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Clement is not writing that letter. Kessler should have written it immediately after the argument. But he really needed to jump Clement with controlled righteous indignation and record cites during the argument. Clement's brief suggested a willingness to push the envelope, so these points should have been anticipated and prepared for.

It's a bad mistake and it may well be too late now. The judges typically cast their votes in conference right after the argument.

My hope is that a judge or some clerks followed the coverage and were taken aback by this.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,187
Boston, MA
Clement is not writing that letter. Kessler should have written it immediately after the argument. But he really needed to jump Clement with controlled righteous indignation and record cites during the argument. Clement's brief suggested a willingness to push the envelope, so these points should have been anticipated and prepared for.

It's a bad mistake and it may well be too late now. The judges typically cast their votes in conference right after the argument.

My hope is that a judge or some clerks followed the coverage and were taken aback by this.
Honest to god, it's borderline incompetence if not malpractice that Kessler didn't pounce on this. I'm flabbergasted.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
Yeah, it was a repeat of a flat out lie by the NFL. I would like to think that the judges have familiarized themselves with the record and realize what Clement said was a steaming pile of crap. If the NFL gets away with this railroading it will be nothing short of an incredible feat on their part. As Ron Burgundy said about the whole wheel of cheese, at this point I wouldn't even be that upset - just amazed. Just unbelievable that they could pull off this magic trick.
It ends up being a math problem, in all honesty. X cases with Y pages of briefing (let alone the record) for each of Z judges. That's why the advocate on the other side needs to have it cold.

And this was a learned, engaged, and informed panel. It's often worse.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Honest to god, it's borderline incompetence if not malpractice that Kessler didn't pounce on this. I'm flabbergasted.
It's arguable that the NFLPA blundered in using Kessler for the reasons that have been discussed. Clement is an appellate rock star and Kessler is not.

And it's arguable that he could or should have done a better job on March 3. (Not having read the transcript, I have no opinion on that...I am just cognizant that observers have argued that Kessler could have done better during the questioning and argument).

But we know this about Jeffrey Kessler: He is not an incompetent or a buffoon. He is an accomplished, respected lawyer and he works at a reputable firm.

That does not mean he doesn't make mistakes. Everyone does. Not writing a letter might be a mistake.

But I have a hard time believing that he was incompetent or committed malpractice here. And I have no doubt that he considered writing a letter to correct all the errors and chose not to for strategic, and thought out, reasons. Not that all of us would agree with his reasons; but this was not an oversight or the result of laziness. It was something that he weighed and rejected.

So that leaves us with possible reasons.

My theory is that Kessler believes that Goodell and Clement's factual misstatements are simply not relevant to the legal issues on appeal. My understanding is that the Court of Appeals is not going to review the factual findings of Goodell, however erroneous. As a result, he may feel that going back into the facts would hurt him on the appeal.

Undoubtedly, there are other ways to justify not writing a letter under these circumstances. That is just one theory. It may be flawed. And, again, those who have said that Kessler erred may be correct. But going to incompetence or malpractice is way too far in my view.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
We talked a little about this issue in the "canceling the noise" thread, but I think that Theo's version of events is perfectly plausible. Lawyers do the wrong thing sometimes. Sometimes they do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Sometimes they don't correct an error because of the knock on problems possibly raised by it, and sometimes that's a good and sometimes it's a bad decision.

Probably should have been raised at argument. Once that chance passes, though, the calculus changes.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Anything raised at this late date would be regarded as a confession of weakness. If it's coming to the attention of the panel, it will be via the media echo chamber.

Apart from this case, it was a big error because facts matter and because oral advocacy is more about credibility than anything else. You protect yours like home and family; you attack the other guy's. It's rare when somebody of Clement's stature gives you an opening, even allowing for the fact that superstars can get away with stuff the rest of us would not try.

The point is simple. If somebody is not trustworthy on small even arguably irrelevant things, you cannot rely on him with regard to the things that matter most. And relatedly, if my adversary is lighting himself on fire on a tangential point -- just to make my client look bad -- what does that say about his (lack of) confidence on the dispositive points?
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,146
Kingston, Nova Scotia
Quotes from Jenkins: "Brady did not lie on this point; he wasn’t even evasive. The person not credible here is the commissioner, and Clement must clarify that to judges Robert Katzmann, Denny Chin and Barrington Parker.
Clement perpetuated another untruth in the written brief he submitted to the court. He said that Brady’s counsel was present for “many of the interviews” during the league’s investigation. In fact, Brady’s counsel was only present for one interview: Brady’s.
Clement’s brief also states that Patriots locker room attendant Jim McNally repeatedly referred to himself as the “deflator” in text messages “throughout” the 2014 season. This too is grossly untrue.
In fact, McNally only called himself the “deflator” in a single text message — months earlier in the offseason. The text was written in May 2014 long before the season began, in no way referred to games or footballs, and was so irrelevant and inconspicuous that league investigator Ted Wells never even asked McNally about it. Clement is ethically required to correct this, too."


So is Sally Jenkins correct in stating that Clement must correct his misstatements of fact (lies)? What if he doesn't? What effect would this have on the case? On his reputation?
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
7,121
Clement is not writing that letter. Kessler should have written it immediately after the argument. But he really needed to jump Clement with controlled righteous indignation and record cites during the argument. Clement's brief suggested a willingness to push the envelope, so these points should have been anticipated and prepared for.

It's a bad mistake and it may well be too late now. The judges typically cast their votes in conference right after the argument.

My hope is that a judge or some clerks followed the coverage and were taken aback by this.
Is it possible that that either Clement or Kessler has sent a letter and it hasn't been filed? Is that something that would appear immediately in the record?
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,187
Boston, MA
It's arguable that the NFLPA blundered in using Kessler for the reasons that have been discussed. Clement is an appellate rock star and Kessler is not.

And it's arguable that he could or should have done a better job on March 3. (Not having read the transcript, I have no opinion on that...I am just cognizant that observers have argued that Kessler could have done better during the questioning and argument).

But we know this about Jeffrey Kessler: He is not an incompetent or a buffoon. He is an accomplished, respected lawyer and he works at a reputable firm.

That does not mean he doesn't make mistakes. Everyone does. Not writing a letter might be a mistake.

But I have a hard time believing that he was incompetent or committed malpractice here. And I have no doubt that he considered writing a letter to correct all the errors and chose not to for strategic, and thought out, reasons. Not that all of us would agree with his reasons; but this was not an oversight or the result of laziness. It was something that he weighed and rejected.

So that leaves us with possible reasons.

My theory is that Kessler believes that Goodell and Clement's factual misstatements are simply not relevant to the legal issues on appeal. My understanding is that the Court of Appeals is not going to review the factual findings of Goodell, however erroneous. As a result, he may feel that going back into the facts would hurt him on the appeal.

Undoubtedly, there are other ways to justify not writing a letter under these circumstances. That is just one theory. It may be flawed. And, again, those who have said that Kessler erred may be correct. But going to incompetence or malpractice is way too far in my view.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. My point was a narrow one. As to the representation by Clement, repeating Goodell's factually incorrect statements about Brady's deposition testimony, Kessler should have been ready to pounce. That he failed to do so was negligent in my view (not actionable, but negligent). In particular because Kessler knew (or had to know) that the Award was factually wrong on this issue, and that Clement's repeating it gave Kessler a great opening to knock Clement down (or at least brush him back). He missed areal opportunity there.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. My point was a narrow one. As to the representation by Clement, repeating Goodell's factually incorrect statements about Brady's deposition testimony, Kessler should have been ready to pounce. That he failed to do so was negligent in my view (not actionable, but negligent). In particular because Kessler knew (or had to know) that the Award was factually wrong on this issue, and that Clement's repeating it gave Kessler a great opening to knock Clement down (or at least brush him back). He missed areal opportunity there.
Agreed. And I agree with DCM that Kessler missed the chance to expose Clement.

One answer is that Kessler just blundered. Another is that he made a judgment that if he went down that path, that it would detract from the strength of his basic, core argument. Sometimes we let things go by if we think that getting into the weeds will take away from our overall point.

My sense is like yours.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Could he have been gunshy about going into anything about "facts" even if he was right since Clement and NFL had teed up a large part of this case as Kessler re-arguing the facts in front of Berman?
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,187
Boston, MA
I do have a question about the comments some of the lawyers have made here about judges living
Could he have been gunshy about going into anything about "facts" even if he was right since Clement and NFL had teed up a large part of this case as Kessler re-arguing the facts in front of Berman?
I would have thought that he would have a bullet-proof response: "No need to argue facts, unless and until the NFL misstates them, then I feel compelled as an officer of the court to make sure that the record reflects the actual facts rather than the ones that the Commissioner made up."
 

awallstein

lurker
Nov 17, 2014
101
The facts are relevant insofar as they (and only they) determine which law is to be applied. Obviously Goodell's discretion isn't entirely unlimited; so the only way to adjudicate the legitimacy of his award is to examine the facts underpinning it. Or so it would seem.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
Could he have been gunshy about going into anything about "facts" even if he was right since Clement and NFL had teed up a large part of this case as Kessler re-arguing the facts in front of Berman?
Not really. It's not a determination of the facts argument at that point, it's an accuracy of your opponent's representation of the record, and this panel is sophisticated enough by a damn sight to get the difference.

Like dc said when he took a break from shaking his head and steaming from the ears at all of this ( ;) ), you make the point quickly, succinctly, and devastatingly at oral argument for both the micro issue itself and the macro implications (especially to a case like this). And because, if done right, it should gobble up Clement's rebuttal time. It's basically Rhetoric 101. Think, "Get that weak ass shit outta here," as you swat a layup attempt back into the 12th row.
 

JimDerochea

lurker
Mar 9, 2016
3
I'm not sure they have to, per se. Because they're not suing the NFL directly. They're filing a consumer fraud complaint with the Massachusetts AG's office, and if the AG's office took it up it would be investigating consumer fraud committed by the league office against the consumers of the state of Massachusetts. It likely doesn't go anywhere as I'm sure the billionaire boy's club will be on the phone to Kraft to get him to nip this in the bud if it ever became an issue.
Au contraire, I received "a call" a couple of weeks back expressing extreme appreciation for my passion and for caring enough to take this action. I was waiting the entire call for the "but please stop" and it never came. That call was my affirmation that the quest was worth it. In fact, within days, the Peter King article came out and the "Well Report in Context" was updated to include King's article and other articles supporting the return of the Patriots picks from other national writers. I'm willing to push this as far as possible and though it's a 1-in-a-million, if it creates some angst with the NFL Office through the legal effort or simply through the "noise" from the support, then it's worth it! https://www.change.org/p/nfl-restoration-of-the-1st-4th-round-patriots-2016-draft-picks?recruiter=22130317&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

~Jim Derochea
 

JimDerochea

lurker
Mar 9, 2016
3
This post deserves some love.



I don't think its "consumer fraud" in any sense of how I understand consumer fraud, but MMV.
It's not so much a case of Consumer Fraud, it's more so a case of creating an unfair method of competition; by unfairly taking away Draft Picks, it diminishes the product on the field and as consumers of the (Patriots) product on the field, it therefore affect the consumer, whether it's patriots products, tickets or the product we pay to watch either through advertising, cable costs or whatever.
 

JimDerochea

lurker
Mar 9, 2016
3
People are sort of dancing around this. This isn't just "likely to go nowhere." If this were filed in a court as a lawsuit under 93A, there's a likelihhod, IMO, that if asked, a judge would find it frivolous and sanction the filer. That Goodell is a shitty Commissioner (according to many, but not nearly all, maybe not even close to a majority) who makes questionable decisions, is not a ground for fraud. And this statement is false: ". . . . by wrongfully taking away draft picks of the New England Patriots, who were absolved of wrongdoing (see Ted Wells Report)." You can't say OJ was convicted of murder.

This is first-year law student-level stupid, as applied to the Patriots and the NFL.

I'm not surprised McCann re-tweeted it though, stupidity notwithstanding. Who you gonna call to get a comment? I wish he'd grab onto the back of a departing campaign bus and skitch out of NH.
had a few legal people weigh in on this, admittedly a Hail Mary, but a Hail Mary with some legal standing. Class Action suits have infinitely less chance of succeeding, so after investigating various options and finding an opportunity under some of the toughest Consumer Protection Laws in the country, why not try? More has been done in the legal arena with far less and you miss 100% of the shots you don't take!
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
10,947
Springfield, VA
Clement letter to the Court from the main thread:
So if the Blecker letter that he mentioned was so improper, why did Clement feel the need to respond? Is that a sign that someone in the court is taking Blecker's letter seriously?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
10,947
Springfield, VA
So Clement, by mentioning the "confidential" Goldberg letter, now gives cover for the Patriots to release the letter publicly. Interesting. Either an unforced error on the NFL's side (by trigger more negative PR for the league), or something else is afoot...
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,981
AZ
So Clement, by mentioning the "confidential" Goldberg letter, now gives cover for the Patriots to release the letter publicly. Interesting. Either an unforced error on the NFL's side (by trigger more negative PR for the league), or something else is afoot...
I definitely feel like Clement got the better of all this. He got to use the strident and over-stated ramblings of an amicus that sounds potentially unbalanced to write a letter reaffirming his view of the Commissioner's ruling. His letter is pretty well done. You normally get slammed for trying to reiterate your arguments after oral arguments, but when you can play the indignant card -- someone questioned my ethics -- you are kind of free to do whatever the fuck you want. Blecker is a shrill hack, and while it gives some red meat to those of us who know the true facts and are infuriated the rest of the world doesn't, he's doing more harm than good.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
It appears that Blecker referenced it in his brief (and attached it) which he somehow got his hands on it. I'm trying to figure out how or where he got it (guessing someone from Pats leaked it to Blecker).

At least that is what I've pieced together so far (from a bunch of articles), but can't vouch for the accuracy of the interpretation.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I definitely feel like Clement got the better of all this. He got to use the strident and over-stated ramblings of an amicus that sounds potentially unbalanced to write a letter reaffirming his view of the Commissioner's ruling. His letter is pretty well done. You normally get slammed for trying to reiterate your arguments after oral arguments, but when you can play the indignant card -- someone questioned my ethics -- you are kind of free to do whatever the fuck you want. Blecker is a shrill hack, and while it gives some red meat to those of us who know the true facts and are infuriated the rest of the world doesn't, he's doing more harm than good.
Figures.

Worse yet, it now appears that this is old crap from the briefing -- that there was no spellbinding brand new lie uttered on argument day.

So he gets a free crack playing off someone unhinged. It won't be outcome determinative, but splendid.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,153
Not a lawyer, but would the items in Clement's letter be in sequential order from those that he felt strongest arguing to those that he felt weakest arguing?

In other words, is his statement about Brady's conversation with Jastremski his most vulnerable position?
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
I definitely feel like Clement got the better of all this. He got to use the strident and over-stated ramblings of an amicus that sounds potentially unbalanced to write a letter reaffirming his view of the Commissioner's ruling. His letter is pretty well done. You normally get slammed for trying to reiterate your arguments after oral arguments, but when you can play the indignant card -- someone questioned my ethics -- you are kind of free to do whatever the fuck you want. Blecker is a shrill hack, and while it gives some red meat to those of us who know the true facts and are infuriated the rest of the world doesn't, he's doing more harm than good.
Yeah, but he simply got the better of a crazy person.

It doesn't strike me as a win so much as a fine parsing of the last point. It's a suboptimal situation for Clement to be in. Not much more than that, but still.

For everyone else, though, the response is basically a prime example of why you don't turn the rhetoric up to 11 when it isn't warranted, especially regarding the professionalism of opposing counsel, and even more especially when you're burying your one decent point among three or four shitty ones.
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,146
Kingston, Nova Scotia
Still if they thoroughly review all the materials on the case, they will find that there were in fact misrepresentations of facts in his presentation. But then again maybe truth and justice are overrated.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
14,314
Michigan
Clement letter to the Court from the main thread:
So if the Blecker letter that he mentioned was so improper, why did Clement feel the need to respond? Is that a sign that someone in the court is taking Blecker's letter seriously?
Clement has chutzpah. He's representing a client that has repeatedly lied from day one of this "scandal" about facts, routinely mischaracterizes statements and evidence, but complains that Blecker "did not honor the convention among lawyers of noting the omission of the end of a sentence with an ellipsis." Two missing dots. The guy has balls.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Yeah, but he simply got the better of a crazy person.

It doesn't strike me as a win so much as a fine parsing of the last point. It's a suboptimal situation for Clement to be in. Not much more than that, but still.

For everyone else, though, the response is basically a prime example of why you don't turn the rhetoric up to 11 when it isn't warranted, especially regarding the professionalism of opposing counsel, and even more especially when you're burying your one decent point among three or four shitty ones.
Except ... this was all but forgotten. And Clement would not have sent the letter if he didn't think it would do some good. He is way beyond getting his nose out of joint for its own sake just because somebody calls him a liar.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
So Clement, by mentioning the "confidential" Goldberg letter, now gives cover for the Patriots to release the letter publicly. Interesting. Either an unforced error on the NFL's side (by trigger more negative PR for the league), or something else is afoot...
It was already publicly filed by Blecker last week. Clement noted the original letter to him was stamped "Personal and Confidential," yet it somehow made its way into the hands of Blecker, and was then filed.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,065
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I definitely feel like Clement got the better of all this. He got to use the strident and over-stated ramblings of an amicus that sounds potentially unbalanced to write a letter reaffirming his view of the Commissioner's ruling. His letter is pretty well done. You normally get slammed for trying to reiterate your arguments after oral arguments, but when you can play the indignant card -- someone questioned my ethics -- you are kind of free to do whatever the fuck you want. Blecker is a shrill hack, and while it gives some red meat to those of us who know the true facts and are infuriated the rest of the world doesn't, he's doing more harm than good.
You may be 100% correct on this, but I had a different visceral take just reading the letters before this thread.

I didn't read the amicus, so I don't know how well it tracks Goldberg's letter, but Goldberg's letter is now public.

Clement's letter in response to the amicus seems a bit twisty and evasive (and overly reliant on process.) If I were a judge reading it for the first time, I wouldn't be entirely clear on what the alleged misstatements were and why those allegations were wrong. I'd certainly have a clerk compare the Goldberg letter, Clement's response, the amicus, and the record, just to see. (Clement's has a good rep, and we all occasionally make de miinimis misstatements, but you just can't plead false facts and then fail to correct them after they're brought to your attention.) What I'd do would depend on what I found.

FWIW, I think the ideal response from Clement would be: a) this isn't appropriate in terms of process, but the accusations are serious, b) because they're serious I want to reassure the court that this is what I filed/said - and it's truthful because. . ., c) beg the court not to be distracted by this, but assure them that you're available for a hearing should the judges have the slightest concern.

I will say that my thinking about this is somewhat influenced by bar complaints. Basically, no matter how outlandish, when your integrity is questioned, you don't want to get snippy. Instead, you want to stand there with a spotlight and shout, "Look, come see, there's no problem here." So, I think there was a similar high road to take here, and I'm not quite sure Clement found it. Nor do I think the court will very much be swayed at all by any of Clement's reiterated arguments or justifications - but coming out of this kind of accusation as a truth-teller with high integrity never hurts your side. Coming out of it a little weaselly could hurt.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,981
AZ
These are interesting comments, RR. I think even at the courts of appeals, lawyers falsely accusing others of supposed ethics violations and misstatements has become par for the course. The sad reality is that it is becoming so common that it almost feels as though indignation is the only permitted response (unless you are prepared to acknowledge you did do something wrong), since there seems to be an expectation even among good judges that lawyer falsely accused of an ethics violation would act indignant. Giving serious, thoughtful take-it-seriously responses definitely runs the risk of giving it more credence than it deserves. I mean, if you knew the judges were going to take it seriously, then you're already at that point, so you might as well take it seriously too. But the harsh reality is they are often so numbed to the name calling that responding that it's a crock of shit is the best option. At least, that's my take on it, but reasonable people can probably disagree on whether that's right.

In that sense, it's a bit different from bar complaints, where you're in a forum whose job it is specifically to decide those issues. It's not a sideshow on the main task of the forum. I do a little bar complaint response work, and it's much different there, especially with a client that is not in the wrong. You have to make clear how important you think the process is, and respond seriously. (Unless of course your client is in trouble, in which case you may need other strategies and what might be optimal with a clean client might be decidedly sub-optimal.)
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
32,348
I will gladly defer to the legal experts here, but it seems to me that both legal "titans" Wells and Clement were very thin-skinned and showed no stomach for taking a little flak while working for the NFL.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
37,627
South Boston
Except ... this was all but forgotten. And Clement would not have sent the letter if he didn't think it would do some good. He is way beyond getting his nose out of joint for its own sake just because somebody calls him a liar.
Agreed. And it's still an issue that was missed or deliberately ignored by Kessler. But, as much as giving Clement another bite at the apple could have been disastrous, this feels more like he felt like he had to send the letter to rehabilitate (possibly because these issues have gotten so much media attention, as you pointed out before) rather than him hitting a home run by taking advantage of a door that was foolishly opened for him.

In other words, I think he thought it could do some good because it was a palpable hit in the first place.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Which it was in the sense that in no reasonable world do I believe Clement sees no daylight or difference between the words exclusively vs primarily other than he was called out for it and the Goldberg letter is now part of the record.

I think he lets it pass if it was just Blecker pissing in the wind in his side briefs. The Goldberg letter was more on point to issues with the NFL case.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
19,065
Miami (oh, Miami!)
These are interesting comments, RR. I think even at the courts of appeals, lawyers falsely accusing others of supposed ethics violations and misstatements has become par for the course. The sad reality is that it is becoming so common that it almost feels as though indignation is the only permitted response (unless you are prepared to acknowledge you did do something wrong), since there seems to be an expectation even among good judges that lawyer falsely accused of an ethics violation would act indignant. Giving serious, thoughtful take-it-seriously responses definitely runs the risk of giving it more credence than it deserves. I mean, if you knew the judges were going to take it seriously, then you're already at that point, so you might as well take it seriously too. But the harsh reality is they are often so numbed to the name calling that responding that it's a crock of shit is the best option. At least, that's my take on it, but reasonable people can probably disagree on whether that's right.

In that sense, it's a bit different from bar complaints, where you're in a forum whose job it is specifically to decide those issues. It's not a sideshow on the main task of the forum. I do a little bar complaint response work, and it's much different there, especially with a client that is not in the wrong. You have to make clear how important you think the process is, and respond seriously. (Unless of course your client is in trouble, in which case you may need other strategies and what might be optimal with a clean client might be decidedly sub-optimal.)
I hear you, especially re the different dynamics. I had no idea it was that common. I'm mostly in federal district courts for civil cases (niche practice) and FL state for criminal cases. Both are pretty good bars generally, and I've almost never run into this.

It happens in some FL state civil cases, which is a minority of my practice. I still prefer the low key direct approach while deferring to the Court. Sometimes it can win you the judge, which ultimately wins you the case.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,981
AZ
I probably was a little hasty in painting all courts of appeal with a broad brush. I'm most familiar with the 9th Circuit, where there are so many judges and litigants from so many states that may never see the same judge for another 5 years that I think there's less accountability and people are a little less civil. I would bet the 1st Circuit is way more civil and professional. When you get inside particular practices that have a smaller bar, even within the context of the larger court, it's more civil.