Paging Mr. Boies!! Message for Mr. Boies!!

lttscoparty

August 2, 2006

From GL's News Picks:

"In writing last week's decision for the court, Justice Carlos R. Moreno stated, "A threat that constitutes criminal extortion is not cleansed of its illegality merely because it is laundered by transmission through the offices of an attorney.""

More at <irony alert>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206615,00.html

10:30:58 PM


Re: Paging Mr. Boies!! Message for Mr. Boies!!

tinnytuba

August 3, 2006

Don't hold your breath on BS&F getting caught like the dunce in the news item. He left a trail a mile wide. BS&F OTOH have at least given the appearance of incompetence as the root of this soap opera. While I'd cheer if evidence came out that they knew this was extortion via barratry, I'd be surprised if they were that stupid. Still, examples like Ollie North and the Enron crooks do provide some hope.

11:21:42 AM


Re: Paging Mr. Boies!! Message for Mr. Boies!!

MathFox

August 3, 2006

I think BSF was lured by a slick presentation from the SCO BoD; an expanded version of the SCO Forum persentations that convinced Enderle, Didio and MoG. Add some visions of piles of green (USD) and even lawyers can be lured easily.
Now BSF is in, they can't get out easily. They'll have to go to the motions and present their client's case in court.

Yes, BSF misbehaved, but stayed away from being a "partner in crime" (If one could ever argue that SCO committed a crime here.) SCO and BSF will feel the heat from bringing a frivolous case, but we're talking damages and (for BSF) diciplinary measures. In this case forcing BSF to pay part of IBM's lawyers fees (and other costs) would be fair, considering that SCO will likely be bankrupt around the time of verdict.

11:40:57 AM


Re: Paging Mr. Boies!! Message for Mr. Boies!!

bruce_s01

August 3, 2006

I think BSF was lured by a slick presentation from the SCO BoD; an expanded version of the SCO Forum persentations that convinced Enderle, Didio and MoG. Add some visions of piles of green (USD) and even lawyers can be lured easily.

Even then, they should have found out fairly quickly that their case is bunk, even getting their own specialists in.

Yes, BSF misbehaved, but stayed away from being a "partner in crime" (If one could ever argue that SCO committed a crime here.) SCO and BSF will feel the heat from bringing a frivolous case, but we're talking damages and (for BSF) diciplinary measures. In this case forcing BSF to pay part of IBM's lawyers fees (and other costs) would be fair, considering that SCO will likely be bankrupt around the time of verdict.

For a start, DB turned up at least 1 conference call, remember all the hype about them just getting paid in shares and from the payout. Then BS&F not really advertising what was going on.
Also BS&F is in charge of the legal strategy, if BS&F found out about the emptiness of SCO's claims, wouldn't they have a obligation (as officers of the court) to minimise fall out, instead of ramping up the claims.
Hey!, it's just struck me, I wonder if the reason why BS&F are still in this, is because of embarassment, as those "Big City Lawyers" have been "had" by a crowd from Utah.

Bruce S.

12:31:58 PM


Re: Paging Mr. Boies!! Message for Mr. Boies!!

MathFox

August 3, 2006

Showing up at a press conference (call) isn't a reason for sanctions, when the lawyer behaves like "an officer of the court". Representing the client is the duty of a lawyer.
Also BS&F is in charge of the legal strategy, if BS&F found out about the emptiness of SCO's claims, wouldn't they have a obligation (as officers of the court) to minimise fall out, instead of ramping up the claims.
I guess that's one issue where BSF could be sanctioned, there is some willfull disobedience of court orders in their presentation of evidence and we haven't seen the conclusion of all discovery issues. (Did SCO send their privacy log to IBM?)
I guess we'll see a significant award of costs to IBM at the end of trial and it would be fair to hold BSF responsible for at least part of those costs. It's up to Kimball to "recommend" the lawyers to bar diciplinary committees as he sees fit.
Hey!, it's just struck me, I wonder if the reason why BS&F are still in this, is because of embarassment, as those "Big City Lawyers" have been "had" by a crowd from Utah.
A lawyer can not resign without permission of his client or the court.

12:53:33 PM


Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911 ]

Copyright 2006