Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9205152" data-attributes="member: 7038835">I agree. One of the most consistently funny things about the WotC lawsuit has been that it seems to be the one instance where Justin has hired lawyer suitable to the scope of the task... which means that his NC lawyer who demanded to appear pro hac vice because he was the expert and needed to be first chair, has been basically excluded. One can only assume that is, at least in part, because Justin's more competent counsel refuses to be part liable for his proposals. She is clearly very professional and competent, but also doing her best with a clown show who is likely also receiving unofficial advice on what to and not tell her, and the obvious issue of Justin seems like he'd be a nightmare client at the best of times.  He very much seems like he has SBF's "I know better than my expensive lawyer does" energy.Part of the reason I assume she feels they're backed into a corner is she is doing the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach to try to cover that her client really doesn't have a singular good explanation for his sins.The role of the attorney is to do their best, within the law and ethics, for advance the interests of their clients.Professors and Judges (particularly, for example, the late Supreme Justice Scalia) will often explain to law class that counter-intuitively, this doesn't mean listing off every possible idea and every tangential fact - but rather going with the most persuasive approach.  Judges are humans, after all, and they are swayed by various subconscious biases. They also keep in mind their decisions must make sense to their fellow humans.Much of law is laid out in specific formulas and tests in such a way that if one "branch" of the test fails, the court is obligated toward a particular outcome - if you can prove your client didn't kill anyone, you don't need to prove the lack of intention to beat a murder charge is probably the most dramatic example.So if you have a really strong persuasive singular argument, it is generally considered advisable to lead with that and then include any backups that you feel help illustrate that point or should just be there (the "no proof" argument, for example, would be expected to be raised purely as a matter of routine).  There is often even value in conceding minor points to the opposite, if it illustrates the strength of your argument and makes the judge grateful you were efficient with their time.For example, if Justin's lawyer were actually 100% confident that Justin did not do this - she would likely simply put forward a simple argument "He didn't do it, and Wizards of the Coast knows or should know this because..." and supply whatever evidence made it clear.  She might then also include something about WotC being meanies and suggest that they should receive costs for this action, etc.By taking a "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" approach, Justin's lawyer could be undermining the credibility of that argument - both demonstrating a lack of confidence in it, and by putting it among weak arguments (the "Free Speech" after expressly agreeing not to say the thing, and the citing of authorities not directly related to the situation) and thus making it seem like its probably also a weak argument.Now, why she did this is impossible to say - its possible she told Justin he should just go with a simple response and pray, but he insisted that she go with the free speech and bad blood arguments because he thinks they're impressive.  It's also possible that she felt that in the absence of a good defence, she needed to throw stuff at the wall. So from the outside, the strategy does not seem good and reeks of desperation - but without being privy to all the confidential information and conversations, its difficult to say if its still not the best strategy counsel could reasonably provide.</blockquote>

Verification