Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
The committee felt that all three firms were equally qualified for the job.
However when it came time to pick one of the three, Redford felt that her husband's (sorry ex-husband's) firm was the best choice. I wonder why and how she arrived at that conclusion?
There was definitely a conflict of interest here when Redford selected her ex-husband's and her child's father to be the firm that would conduct the litigation.
|
See this is the part I have an issue with. You don't know why she arrived at that conclusion, but you automatically assume that the only reason was that her ex was employed by the firm.
At the very least, you are totally disregarding the other contents of the memo:
Quote:
|
Considering the perceived conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, the structure of the contingency arrangement and the importance of a ‘made-in-Alberta’ litigation plan, the best choice will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.
|
I don't know about you, but it seems like it shows that a lot of things were taken into consideration than who her ex worked for. Of course, I have no idea who else was in the running for the job, or what conflicts might have existed (real or perceived), or what the other considerations mentioned factored in.
I have no problems throwing her under the bus for this, but I would like to have all the details before I do.