Michigan State oh boy

[hawkinn3]

The sheer stupidity and lack of critical thinking from a person who is the face of your program and supposed to lead these young men is astounding.

They bring in a sexual assault survivor to educate the team on how to better treat women and the coach’s instinct is to try and have sex with her.

Like if he wants to tom cat around Lansing, so be it but have some better decision making.

 

[PlatypusMessiah]

I'm a big ten guy through and through like 99% of everybody here. But I'm getting real tired of not having the moral high ground when discussing conference ethics. It sure feels like everyone in the SEC has been caught on some form of cheating, but the B1G leads in some really disgusting human behavior by a mile. I think I can remember an SEC scandal of a coach sleeping with his admin, but that's nothing compared to (in particular) the revolting behavior of MSU and PSU coaches and staff over the years. I understand the argument of you can't take it out on the team, the kids had nothing to do with this. Fine, take it out on the AD's and chancellors until universities get it. You just can't be paid a mountain of money and drag your team, your school, your conference, and really the entire system into the mud like this.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

The sheer stupidity and lack of critical thinking from a person who is the face of your program and supposed to lead these young men is astounding.

They bring in a sexual assault survivor to educate the team on how to better treat women and the coach’s instinct is to try and have sex with her.

Like if he wants to tom cat around Lansing, so be it but have some better decision making.

It's wild... His defense being that it was consensual is supposed to make all this alright too. The dude is a married father of 2 right? What's the point of morality clauses if having the face of your program behaving in such a way as you laid out is just ok?

I think that's bad enough he shouldn't be chasing after her like he was to begin with. Even if it was consensual and she's a woman scorned going all scorched earth on him so what? He's a scumbag cheating perv at best. At worst he's lying and was verbally sexually assaulting a woman that's been a victim in her life before. One is way worse but there's no way this paints him in any kind of good light at all.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Oh, I'm sure it will get litigated as well. Just pointing out that the university certainly has a contractual case if it wanted to dig its heals in. 1950s or not, Tucker's actions could easily be interpreted as bringing significant and potentially damaging embarrassment to MSU.

As you well know as an attorney, though, there is a lot of money to be made by getting those with the resources to fork out huge sums to avoid the time, hastle, and legal fees - and the small chance that they would lose substantially more money by not agreeing to a settlement - to simply settle a case. That's an unfortunate bed rock of our civil legal world.

Just curious, but, given the language of the contract, and how this has made the university look from a national perspective, do you think this would get litigated in a country that doesn't allow contingency fees?

I assume Tucker has enough money in the bank to pay a lawyer to litigate this for him hourly. Honestly, its the smart thing for him to do. Let's say I am right and it settles for 5 mill. That is 1.8 mill to the lawyer. It would be very hard to rack up that kind of dough at $500 an hour. So, yes, I think it would get litigated either way.

I do mostly defense work, so the real question entities with means have to deal with is just plain risk. No attorney or CEO/AD/President wants to face a board of directors and explain why they have to pay an 80 million dollar judgment when they could have settled for 5. Its a business judgment.

That all said, and based upon the strong language of the contract and MSU's poor history with respect to violence against women in their athletic department, a really good argument could be made for publicly declaring they won't pay him a dime voluntarily, and let it play out in court. High chance that they win the case and they would look principled (for a change) in doing so.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I would add that almost all contingent fee cases have some merit-only the outrageous cases get media attention. ​

I could introduce you to a couple hundred thousand defense attorneys in this country who would challenge this position. There are inequities on both sides of the equation. There are certainly little guys who cannot afford the legal warfare even though they have a legitimate case. That is absolutely a shame. That said, I have settled hundreds of cases in my career that have absolutely no merit, but it was cheaper to settle than to fight in court. Plaintiff's attorneys fully understand how to position a case for "cost of defense" settlements.

As a broad generality, if there is a statute that has an attorneys' fee provision (meaning if you win, the defendant pays the plaintiff's fees), or if there is enough money at stake that a contingency fee is workable, then the little guy can generally find a lawyer to pursue the case whether it has merit or not. Otherwise, the little guy usually struggles to find justice. It is what it is.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Tucker's case will turn on it's granular details. If the allegations are true then Tucker's morality and public conduct cause will make it easy for the University to pay him a little money based on cost of defense. When I say granular details, I mean more than just Tucker jerking off. For example, if he did that and she didn't know, she could not have been harmed. What precisely is the nature of the "consensual defense"? Did Tucker have a reason to believe she'd object if she knew? Lots of questions to be asked.

So when you become paralyzed from a doctor and the other guy won't pay, you'd have the resources to hire the experts, conduct the multi state expert depositions, and to hire the experts in the first place? Then, of top of that would you have the money to pay $300-$600 and hour for a lawyer who will spend hundreds of hours on your case.

You are a fortunate man if you have that kind of money. Most people aren't. So, the injured or damaged could rarely hope to maintain that kind of litigation. Or the guy that gets defamed by a patently false sexual misconduct case? Or the bank illegally forecloses a house? There would be no recovery for those people. I would add that almost all contingent fee cases have some merit-only the outrageous cases get media attention. ​

I'm not necessarily advocating against contingency fees, but IMO some type of hybrid system - where the plaintiff is not disincentivized for bringing a case forward and, concomitantly, the attorney is not incentivized by potentially exorbitant contingency reimbursement (especially in class-action cases) makes the most sense. Plaintiffs that have a good legal case but lack sufficient resources should not be "punished." By the same token, an attorney walking away with 33% of a class-action settlement of 300 million dollars is ridiculous.

As NorthKCHawk points out, to characterize attorneys basically forcing defendants to settle out of fear of legal costs, red tape and time commitment as a relatively rare occurrence is delusional. That happens hundreds if not thousands of times weekly in this country.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I could introduce you to a couple hundred thousand defense attorneys in this country who would challenge this position. There are inequities on both sides of the equation. There are certainly little guys who cannot afford the legal warfare even though they have a legitimate case. That is absolutely a shame. That said, I have settled hundreds of cases in my career that have absolutely no merit, but it was cheaper to settle than to fight in court. Plaintiff's attorneys fully understand how to position a case for "cost of defense" settlements.

As a broad generality, if there is a statute that has an attorneys' fee provision (meaning if you win, the defendant pays the plaintiff's fees), or if there is enough money at stake that a contingency fee is workable, then the little guy can generally find a lawyer to pursue the case whether it has merit or not. Otherwise, the little guy usually struggles to find justice. It is what it is.

Always figured there was a term for that sort of thing.

The fact that it takes big $ for little guys to even get in the game of defending themselves or going after something they should be entitled to is just wack. But I compare it to the medical world. One isn't entitled to free health care (yet) Docs aren't entitled to do whatever it takes to fix you for whatever it is you can afford. The market sets their rates (with the help of insurance companies and that's a whole other rabbit hole). Same with Lawyers.

If there was a way to cut out the insurance companies and lawyers imagine how much more affordable health and justice for everyone could be.

 

[Teddy]

I'm not necessarily advocating against contingency fees, but IMO some type of hybrid system - where the plaintiff is not disincentivized for bringing a case forward and, concomitantly, the attorney is not incentivized by potentially exorbitant contingency reimbursement (especially in class-action cases) makes the most sense.

What would this look like? Who decides how much each litigant has to pay? The judge? Spend some time in a large courthouse and you will sour on that option.

You are missing an important part of the contingent fee concept. Without the lawyer there won't be any settlements or verdicts. The lawyer's skills knowledge and experience are required to get to first base. That lawyer takes no income from the work unless Plaintiff wins or settles.

I agree there is some need for class action reform. There should be a "substantial harm" or a meaningful invasion of a liberty interest to the class members included in the various necessary elements of a class action. You may not realize state AGs are the most common class action cases. Then they get a huge award as a form of taxation. The members of the class action get 19 cents.
​

By the same token, an attorney walking away with 33% of a class-action settlement of 300 million dollars is ridiculous.

Why? How is that unjust? Cases in those magnitudes are very rare. Remember, without the lawyer there is nothing. In a large-scale class action, the defendants frequently settle because they have pulled some heinous shenanigans that would be exposed to the world in a trial. They are legitimately afraid of trial.​

The fact that it takes big $ for little guys to even get in the game of defending themselves or going after something they should be entitled to is just wack. But I compare it to the medical world. One isn't entitled to free health care (yet) Docs aren't entitled to do whatever it takes to fix you for whatever it is you can afford. The market sets their rates (with the help of insurance companies and that's a whole other rabbit hole). Same with Lawyers.

No one is forced to settle, especially not deep pockets. Deep pockets could fight it out with minimal risk of loss, if they thought they have a good defense. Plaintiff's settle because every plaintiff in every case faces the possibility of take the offer take your chances with a jury.

That 1/3 contingency has been around for a long time. The market has set the rate. If someone works sufficiently hard (thousands of hours) invested thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars on experts, depositions, case analysis (like I had to learn all about construction standards and other things that go into the construction of houses for a series of a common builders consistent failure to build the damn things right) and a myriad of other expenses because they think they can prove plaintiff's case and have gambled greatly on being right. A lawyer that has done that and produces a huge verdict or settlement has earned their cut.

​

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

What would this look like? Who decides how much each litigant has to pay? The judge? Spend some time in a large courthouse and you will sour on that option. . .

​

You can pick apart any type of reimbursement structure, in any field. No system is perfect, and in many cases market driven. Regardless, someone has to put together the nuts and bolts at some point.

I can't comment on the specifics of how such a system would look like in the civil legal world, or how the rules would be set, but, nevertheless, different countries have done just that. Contingency fees are not allowed in Germany for example, and Great Britain has a bit of a hybrid set-up.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect it, but if your assertion is that attorneys rarely use leverage to basically coerce settlements on the part of the defendant, or that they should be entitled to 33% of exorbitant settlement amounts (including punitive amounts), then we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I have several attorneys and a couple of judges as friends. All of them are genuine and hard working people, but even they roll their eyes at some of the stuff that goes on. To debate it is pointless and I'm not going down that rabbit hole further.

Hopefully, the other attorney regulars on this site will chime in further. It is an interesting subject, but kind of derails the thread.