Multiple Major Law Firms have Refused Sterling

[eliteballer]

http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=15879

[navy]

This fool is done.

[noob cake]

Good luck after that disaster of an interview last night...

[Rodmantheman]

Good luck after that disaster of an interview last night...

this

[MavsSuperFan]

Good luck after that disaster of an interview last night...
he should have just tried to fight it in the courts.

Now law firms will be too scared to touch him and appear racist

[triangleoffense]

he should have just tried to fight it in the courts.

Now law firms will be too scared to touch him and appear racist
That's really the issue here is should it be fair to condemn someone for appearing to be racist. If a murderer or rapist gets the opportunity to be afforded every right given to them under the law than why shouldn't a racist?

I'm sure these major law firms did a risk assessment analysis and came to the conclusion that even with the huge retainer cost that Sterling is able to pay the negative PR isn't worth it to them since they are such a huge company. Smaller law firms, however, don't have the privilege of being able to choose their customers, they simply need the business. Assuming that Sterling is racist, it's no different than if a murderer (OJ Simpson) walked into their law firm and asked for the best defense attorney that particular firm had to offer.

[DukeDelonte13]

negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.

[Clyde]

negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.

:applause:

[MostHated305]

negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.


This makes more sense.

[SpecialQue]

negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.

Exactly. Sterling's a billionaire. He's going to find someone that wants some of his money.

[inclinerator]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals

[kamil]

That's really the issue here is should it be fair to condemn someone for appearing to be racist. If a murderer or rapist gets the opportunity to be afforded every right given to them under the law than why shouldn't a racist?

I'm sure these major law firms did a risk assessment analysis and came to the conclusion that even with the huge retainer cost that Sterling is able to pay the negative PR isn't worth it to them since they are such a huge company. Smaller law firms, however, don't have the privilege of being able to choose their customers, they simply need the business. Assuming that Sterling is racist, it's no different than if a murderer (OJ Simpson) walked into their law firm and asked for the best defense attorney that particular firm had to offer.

OJ also got away with murder. You guys dont think an old fool will get away with simply flapping his gums? Anyone ever heard the saying actions speak louder than words? Well, Sterling hasn't really DONE anything other than piss off a LOT of people with his words.

[dude77]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals

:oldlol: this .. what is this shit about pr and don't want to be seen as a racist .. lawyers defend all kinds of evil, horrible people all the time ..

what duke posted sounds more plausible

[MavsSuperFan]

negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.
You don't think in case this high profile some of the better firms will be scared to be associated with defending sterling?

[kamil]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals

LMAO! So damn true.

[navy]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals
They dont. Sterling is toxic and bad for business.

[triangleoffense]

Actually the owners should be thanking Sterling I haven't been this interested in the league in quite some time. :oldlol:

[kaiteng]

There are always Johnny-Cochran's.

[gts]

Law firms tend to take cases they can win or at least look good while losing.

First there's the whole arbitration written into the NBA bylaws that basically say that you can't fight an NBA decision in court. Sterling has signed this part of the contract when he became an owner and every time the constitution has been amended, being an attorney himself and the owner of a sizable LA law firm Sterling can't even plead ignorance

Also a law firm wants to take a case that will actually see a courtroom, or at least make noise, from what the experts are saying good luck even getting a judge to allow the case to see a courtroom because of the above mentioned NBA bylaws.

And in this day and age of political correctness big firms are going to be hesitant to take on a case that's just dirty and won't be setting legal precedent or making the right kind of waves...

Nobody wants to be associated with a old racist that can't keep his mouth shut

[PJR]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals

Has nothing to do with morals, and everything to with how iron clad the NBA bylaws and constitution are. Sterling has nothing going for him, in terms of litigation against the NBA. Good lawyers aren't going to waste their time or reputation.

[HurricaneKid]

A firm won't take a hopeless case; it impacts their credibility and ability to bill. This is a hopeless case. No sense in bringing your firm to join Sterling in front of the firing squad.

[DukeDelonte13]

A firm won't take a hopeless case; it impacts their credibility and ability to bill. This is a hopeless case. No sense in bringing your firm to join Sterling in front of the firing squad.

far from hopeless. There are plenty of issues to be litigated here. What the NBA did here is unprecedented.

[HurricaneKid]

far from hopeless. There are plenty of issues to be litigated here. What the NBA did here is unprecedented.

You are wrong. The NBA's actions may be punitive but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to them. Sterling has no viable recourse.

I don't know where you get your information from but its a ****ty source.

The can try some shenanigans (like getting divorced to attempt to hold up the sale, etc) but that doesn't mean there is any way for him to avoid the inevitable conclusion to this.

[Bob Dole]

Those lawyers are so beta.

I bet Lebron's Attorney is Alpha as ***. :bowdown:

Durant's Attorney probably cries all up in court looking for sympathy. :cry:

[triangleoffense]

Those lawyers are so beta.

I bet Lebron's Attorney is Alpha as ***. :bowdown:

Durant's Attorney probably cries all up in court looking for sympathy. :cry:
I guess ur right the greatest Beta player would need to surround himself with alphas.

[DukeDelonte13]

You are wrong. The NBA's actions may be punitive but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to them. Sterling has no viable recourse.

I don't know where you get your information from but its a ****ty source.

The can try some shenanigans (like getting divorced to attempt to hold up the sale, etc) but that doesn't mean there is any way for him to avoid the inevitable conclusion to this.


:oldlol: you have no idea what you are talking about.

this isn't some open and shut / black and white thing. This is uncharted territory for the NBA. Litigation oftentimes is not designed to avoid the inevitable, its designed to put the aggrieved party in the best possible position going forward.

Forcing an owner to sell? To who? by when? in what manner? etc. All issues that need to be resolved.

[gts]

He found one...

SI.com has learned that Donald Sterling has hired prominent antitrust litigator Maxwell Blecher, who has written a letter to NBA executive vice president and general counsel Rick Buchanan threatening to sue the NBA. The letter, sources tell SI.com, claims that Sterling has done nothing wrong and that "no punishment is warranted" for Sterling. Blecher also tells Buchanan that Sterling will not pay the $2.5 million fine, which is already past due. Blecher ends the letter by saying this controversy "will be adjudicated."

Blecher's letter makes clear what many have anticipated: Donald Sterling will not go down without a fight and that he is taking active steps towards litigation. A letter of this type is considered a precursor to the filing of a lawsuit. Blecher's letter offers no ambiguity about Sterling's intentions.
"We reject your demand for payment," the letter tells Buchanan, who on May 14 informed Sterling by letter that he must pay the $2.5 million fine.

Blecher's letter goes on to identify two basic legal defenses for Sterling.

MCCANN: The potential legal fallout of Sterling's CNN interview
First, Blecher claims that Sterling has not violated any article of the NBA constitution. The letter curiously references Article 35, which governs players' misconduct, and several other provisions. The NBA is expected to argue that Sterling violated Article 13(d), among other provisions. Article 13 (d) bars owners from violating contractual obligations, including the obligation that owners no engage in unethical conduct or take positions adverse to the NBA. Blecher does not explain how he intends to prove Sterling's racist remarks captured on the secret recording -- followed by Sterling's incendiary remarks to Anderson Cooper about Magic Johnson -- do not give rise to unethical conduct or positions adverse to the NBA.

Second, Blecher argues that Sterling's "due process rights" have been violated by the NBA. A due process claim may sound superficially reasonable. After all, Sterling was banned permanently from the NBA after a mere four-day investigation, without any formal proceedings. If the NBA were a federal agency or a state college, Sterling might have a good argument, as those are public entities that must provide safeguards found under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The problem for Sterling is that the NBA is a private association and is not required to provide due process rights. Sterling, moreover, contractually assented to the NBA's system of justice through various contracts, including his franchise agreement to purchase the Clippers and the joint venture agreement, which indicates the NBA has binding authority over the teams.


Any lawsuit by Sterling against the NBA would face a daunting task, as Sterling contractually agreed to follow the NBA's system of justice.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/donald-sterling-nba-la-clippers-adam-silver/

[SamuraiSWISH]

Sterling is a gross racist. But what this country is turning into is unsettling ... this isn't America. When a man can be black balled from a league for comments made outside of his business in his personal time, recorded by a gold digging woman, and no lawfirm will defend him? What is wrong with this damn country now?

[oarabbus]

weak lawyers, they are suppose to have no morals


:applause:

Greatest post of the month

[Bernkastel]

Sterling is a gross racist. But what this country is turning into is unsettling ... this isn't America. When a man can be black balled from a league for comments made outside of his business in his personal time, recorded by a gold digging woman, and no lawfirm will defend him? What is wrong with this damn country now?

Unless you know the reason why they refused, it's best not to jump to conclusions. They could've rejected him for reasons unrelated to his racism.

[oarabbus]

Unless you know the reason why they refused, it's best not to jump to conclusions. They could've rejected him for reasons unrelated to his racism.

:biggums:

He can't find a lawyer and he's a billionaire.

[Bernkastel]

:biggums:

He can't find a lawyer and he's a billionaire.


negative PR? Law firms? :oldlol:

big firms are probably conflicted out because they probably represent other entities in connection with various ownership groups across the league.

There are bigger billionaires out there. :pimp:

[steve]

That's really the issue here is should it be fair to condemn someone for appearing to be racist. If a murderer or rapist gets the opportunity to be afforded every right given to them under the law than why shouldn't a racist?

This isn't a criminal case. Sterling would not be going to jail for SUING (he is the one taking legal action here) the NBA. Someone charged with a crime are afforded an attorney because they have a right to a fair trial. This is nowhere near the situation with Sterling, just because he has the ability to sue the NBA doesn't mean that it can or will be brought to court.


Sterling is a gross racist. But what this country is turning into is unsettling ... this isn't America. When a man can be black balled from a league for comments made outside of his business in his personal time, recorded by a gold digging woman, and no lawfirm will defend him? What is wrong with this damn country now?

I keep seeing people make this point and I'm not sure people have a fair grasp on what owning a professional sports franchise entails. For one, it's not entirely his to do with what he wants. Not everyone can buy a franchise just because they have the money. This isn't like going out a buying a coffee table just because you can. Otherwise, potential owners wouldn't have to be accepted by the other owners, it's also why he has to agree to the NBA constitution in the first place (which means they also have to adhere to the bylaws of the league). Also, the comments he made weren't personal the moment they started to greatly effect his business and the business of the NBA both in the short term and the long term. Owning an NBA franchise is not a private business in and of itself, it is 1/30th of entity that makes up the NBA.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I keep seeing people make this point and I'm not sure people have a fair grasp on what owning a professional sports franchise entails.
Which sport franchise do you own?

[El Gato Negro]

http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=15879
Wouldn't trust anything said by that worthless source. seriously tho when did tmz who reports on celebrity gossip become a credible news source?