Nov 24, 2010, 11:00 AM EDT
Like I said last week, it’s a bit of sucker’s game to try to predict an ultimate ruling in a case based on what a court-appointed mediator proposes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to try to predict such things. And there is one fact in the proposed settlement, reported by Bill Shaikin, that I find to be pretty interesting:
As the mediator in the Dodgers’ divorce case prepared his settlement proposal, he consulted not only with Frank and Jamie McCourt but with representatives from Bingham McCutchen, the firm that employs the lawyer whose actions could determine who owns the team. The mediation process is confidential, but analysts said the mediator likely invited Bingham to help fund a settlement now rather than risk a potentially more costly malpractice suit later.
The malpractice, you’ll recall, is related to Frank’s lawyer switching out the exhibit to the post-nuptial agreement that had Jamie getting the Dodgers and switching in the one that showed her being cut out. Which, I still believe, is what the parties intended, by the way. Problem is, if you were going to try and unfairly screw Jamie out of her stake in the Dodgers, that would be an excellent, albeit obvious way to do it, and the court is going to have a hard time overlooking that behavior. If you want to make such clerical changes, you get both parties on the horn and have them re-execute the deal. You don’t pull the old switcheroo.
If the court ultimately rules for Jamie, Frank will have a righteous malpractice suit against the Bingham firm as a result of all of this. By having them kick in money now, as the proposed settlement does, it softens that blow and heads off an ugly litigation in which many of the same issues that happened in the divorce case would be dredged up. No one wants that.
So the question is this: does the mediator — who is himself a judge, by the way — know that the judge presiding over the case is going to rule for Jamie and wants to try and wrap it all up now? Does he merely suspect it? Or is this just a belt-and-suspenders kind of thing?
I have no idea. I do know this, though: if someone tells me that they want to make my future malpractice case against my lawyers easier, I’m not going to feel very good about the case I actually have pending at the moment. Frank, I would assume, is not a happy man at the moment.
- Settling the Score: Friday’s results 0
- Vin Scully will return in 2016 for his 67th season of broadcasting 32
- The Athletics have a travel-heavy 2016 schedule and unsuccessfully tried to have it altered 9
- Mariners fire general manager Jack Zduriencik 71
- Pedro Martinez wonders if bad chemistry is the reason the Tigers and Mariners are out of contention 50
- Vote of non-confidence: Reds owner says manager Bryan Price won’t be fired before the season is over 23
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 86
- Denard Span headed back to DL with hip inflammation, unlikely to return this season 10
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (262)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (200)
- Curt Schilling taken off of Little League World Series duty for making a really bad tweet (169)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Phillies announcer calls Mets fans “obnoxious” (123)