Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
"No chance" is not something a lawyer recommends. "Remote chance" or "probably unsuccessful" might be taken depending on the cost-benefit analysis.
And clients who think they are in the right often instruct a lawsuit to be taken even where the advice is "probably not successful". After that, we lawyers just do the best we can to win. After making sure the original advice is documented 
Of course, we are all operating on limited facts - we don't even know for sure what the termination letter says, what the grievance says, or what options the Kings had for trades, etc. |
I lol'ed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
A lottery ticket implicitly assumes that the amount you're paying is dwarfed by the astronomical odds against winning. If you had a 1/1000 chance of winning a billion dollars, and it's only going to cost you, say, $50,000 to take that chance, you should take it, long odds or no. The high risk is balanced out by the low downside and high upside.
Different companies have different approaches. Remember, 95+% of disputes settle. Usually there are business relationships tied up in these things as well, and often you're still going to have to deal with your counterparty going forward, so often this sort of tactic is used for leverage. There's also almost no such thing as a "sure loser" - crazy positions sometimes succeed even when you yourself think "we're completely screwed here". This is especially true in arbitrations; even if one party ends up winning arbitrators are notorious for trying to throw the losing side a bone.
Doesn't mean they didn't do their due diligence. I mean, the Kings do have the league on their side and we may not be privy to additional facts. From where we sit it looks fairly absurd, though, I agree.
|
To respond to these 2 (and the fact that both Lombardi/Bettman are lawyers) my point is that, generally speaking, I would assume that both of them are taking the approach by viewpoint of a lawyer (versus, say, if this was Kevin Lowe or Garth Snow, I would think they are full of crap)... and that is, I don't think the LAK/NHL will show up to court and say "You know what judge/arbitrator, I was kind of hoping the NHLPA wouldn't appeal. It was worth a shot, we had nothing to loose. But since you are appealing... ya I got nothing."
As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't know who will win or anything; the facts aren't out, and frankly even if they were, I'm not a lawyer either. It wouldn't surprise me the least if this was settled outside of court and MR got a undisclosed sum of money as compensation and everyone walks away happy. My only point here is that, because of the history I know of Lombardi, and the fact that the LAK/NHL has a team of lawyers, I have to think they have a pretty solid basis they think they can take to court; whether its a winning basis, I have no idea - for that we'll have to see.