Not in the inherent public disputes, every development requires a response. Sometimes, the best response is no response at all.
On Tuesday, attorney Rusty Hardin could serve clients better because he did not respond to Ashley Solis’s compelling statement. Ashley Solis was the first of 22 people to sue Deshaun Watson for assault and harassment, adding her name to the lawsuit and giving a public speech about it. Harding’s lengthy statement sought a “trap” by attacking this specific claim made by Ashley Solis in a speech to reporters: “People say I do this just to make money. That’s wrong. .”
Harding’s statement tried to describe Ashley Solis as a lie by sharing chapter-by-chapter details of the settlement discussions that took place before the lawsuit was filed three weeks ago. Although Hardin uses the term “boo” to describe the initial settlement request, Hardin’s public e-mail message reveals the standard type of pre-litigation communication. In this type of lawyer, the lawyer tries to resolve potential claims by going back and forth in the litigation. Request without litigation. Hope to reach a consensus.
The email confirmed that the asking price of $100,000 was not raised in an unethical or improper way, but made things happen in the usual way. One lawyer warned the other lawyer that there was a dispute, and both lawyers were trading until The dispute ends. Is it resolved or not. Given that civil lawsuits involving such claims are generally of low value, opening up demand is not surprising. Solis seeks compensation of $100,000 through lawyer Tony Buzbee. This means that through the negotiation process, Solis and Bouzby will eventually reduce their acceptance. The case is most likely to reach a settlement between $50,000 and $75,000.
Harding’s e-mail indicated that this request was not regarded as extortion or extortion, but a legitimate effort to resolve the case.
“[I] “I want to check this information to see if Ms. Solis wants to help us understand the reasons behind the $100,000 demand, or return a different number,” Scott Gaffield wrote on behalf of Watson. “As I am [attorney] Dog el [Brandfield-Harvey] Last week, we did not believe the so-called facts that Deshaun did something wrong to Ms. Solis, but we are happy to continue the conversation around a reasonable reconciler, because we believe he can learn from him in this situation. “
In other words, Watson’s camp is willing to consider paying something The case was resolved because, as Garfield said, “we believe he can learn a lesson from it.”
Surprisingly, Harding’s team voluntarily disclosed this communication, otherwise the communication is confidential and will never be used by the public. It shows that Watson’s representative believes that Ashley Solis’s proposition is not an understatement, but provides Watson with a beneficial opportunity to provide Watson with “about putting himself in this situation Lessons”.
More importantly, this effort by Harding and his team ultimately stemmed from the desire to portray Ashley Solis as a liar, because her lawyer requested a $100,000 court settlement. And she now says that she did it “wrongly, just for money”. “
Although lawyers usually attack opponents by portraying them as liars, there is an important thing to keep in mind when doing so. The statement under attack must be clearly and undisputedly a lie.
Proving that Solis could have settled the matter quietly in February, without the costs of litigation, delays, uncertainty and discomfort, does not mean that she is lying now, and that she is not “for money”. Although Buzbee’s comment on the case has nothing to do with money is somewhat ambiguous, it is partly because the civil justice system is based on the notion that justice is distributed through the payment of money, not for eyeballs. For paying (hence the term “civil”), Ashley Solis is willing to accept a lump-sum payment as the justified reputation justice without having to laboriously file a lawsuit. This does not mean that she is motivated. Improper or this is some form of cash acquisition.
Harding wants people to believe Yes Cash snapped up. Now that we have seen and heard the voice of Ashley Solis, and know how much her public decision will affect her life, who can reasonably claim that this will try to squeeze $100,000 from Watson?
In many ways, Harding was caught off guard by Buzbee assaulting Watson in the court of public opinion. Although Boozby’s performance was not flawless, Harding tried to portray Ashley Solis as someone who viewed her lawsuit against Watson as a possible ticket to the six-figure lottery. Behavior, it doesn’t help, and vice versa.
In the end, how did Harding’s response benefit Watson? This is the question someone on Hardin’s team should ask. This is the most difficult thing when the echo cavity begins to reverberate. In a bubble of advocates keen on one side, usually no one will back off and say: “Should we really do this?”
If there are such people in Watson’s legal team, then today’s statement will undoubtedly not be released.