Friday, February 11, 2011

Silly season.

---
How can you tell we're in a lull in the McCourt divorce proceedings? Well, I guess you could go by my suffering post rate. That, or you could notice that what scant news there is concerns those usually paid to be quiet--the lawyers. Lately, there's been a small flurry of activity. Recently, the Times' Bill Shaikin noted that Bingham McCutchen--Larry Silverstein's firm--and the Dodgers have parted ways. The timing of all this is a bit in question...Shaikin suggests the relationship was severed in late December, while my understanding is it happened weeks prior. That's a distinction without a difference, however: the takeaway is that Bingham and Frank McCourt are no longer working together.

This should come, of course, as no surprise. Given everything that has transpired over the last several months, it's difficult to imagine either Frank or Bingham wanting to remain working with the other. In fact, it's easy to imagine Frank and Bingham working against each other at some point in the future. After all, whichever McCourt ends up losing out in the divorce will likely go after Bingham. As many other of the dozen-plus lawyers related to this case would tell you, we're still months--if not years--from finishing this case. But it will end some day, and whoever loses will look for scalps elsewhere. And what better place to start then the law firm that could be ultimately responsible for the allegedly-lacking actions of one of its attorneys?

To that end, Bingham McCutchen has hired another very prominent law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, to represent its interests in any potential litigation. (Shaikin's report here.) Specifically, Gibson Dunn's Kevin Rosen will be responsible for keeping Larry Silverstein's mistakes from costing Bingham dearly. I have heard that Rosen has been working with Bingham for some time, likely well before the December ruling in which Judge Gordon invalidated the MPA. Hiring an attorney isn't an admission of guilt, but it is a sign of concern. As someone familiar with the situation told me recently, "It's a prudent practice to anticipate all those scenarios and that includes seeking advice internally and externally." One of 'those scenarios,' of course, is a possible malpractice action aimed at Bingham.

Still, that litigation is months and months off, if not longer. In the mean time, Bingham is likely evaluating all its defenses: those it might use in a courtroom, to be sure, but also proactive defensive measures designed to avoid litigation entirely. It has been reported in the past that Bingham was a party to settlement discussions between the McCourts; in theory, it could offer some much-needed cash in exchange for both parties' agreements not to pursue their future claims--if any--against Bingham. Within or without a courtroom, Bingham's involvement in the McCourt divorce will not end soon. And so Bingham's own retention of a law firm with significant expertise in this area is perfectly reasonable.
---

16 comments:

  1. Although the mentioned firm does have an office in California, with admitted attorneys, they do list estate planning as a firm niche but not list Family Law. Therefore, the question will always exist whether any attorneys at the firm were competent to practice Family Law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't really think that matters. Duty of competency is on the attorney at all times, so it's not like Bingham is going to argue they were incompetent in estate planning/marital property. That would be admitting malpractice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wish more people knew how to read and interprete english.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bingham is toast, Frank will skewer him like he did his original partners from the Boston parking lot. On another note, I don't think either McCourt can afford to sell their half of the team. Did not they take out (in advance) large sums of money (hundreds of millions) to pay for properties and lavious lifestyles? The seller has to pay that back or incur capital gains taxes. I would think the IRS will be awaiting with both hands out to collect theirs first

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting article in today's LAT. McCourt reiterates that his 4 sons will inherit the Dodgers. What's interesting about that? If both Frank and Jaime share that goal (continued family ownership of the team), would that kernel of an idea create an opportunity for a settlement?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The blog post Silly season was very interesting! Lot of interesting knowledge which can be supportive in some or the other way,

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like this post! It's really cool.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a very charming and informative - and a lot of good information available! Thank you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I really enjoyed that. He greatly expanded my horizons! !!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hmm ... Interesting argument. There is much to ponder. Thank you for the information !!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are a very talented writer! Thanks for sharing this great and interesting stuff. I would like to see more posts like this!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh it's just indescribably wonderful what you wrote))) Nothing I've seen so far not. I think this is really a very nice post!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. That is very kind of you to write this share for us, thanks a lot. wow... cool! Exceeded my expectations and were awarded!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simply and tastefully!! ) Continue to work and will be even better!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very actual information for me!

    ReplyDelete
  16. In fact a closer match would be with Labour's performance in 1987-92 when Kinnock actually had a slightly better average lead over the whole Parliament than Ed has had so far in this one - and Neil of course lost in 1992 despite a recession that should have destroyed the Tories reputation as reliable managers of the economy. To get more info please visit help-essay.com/essay-examples.

    ReplyDelete