<p>
</p>
<p>The Dad testified that he understood he was not to say anything to his daughter but he chose to do so anyway. </p>
<p>^
Right.</p>
<p>Then I think that plaintiffs’ attys out there are now aware that it’s an almost impossible secret to keep (not the amount, the fact that an agreement exists), and insist that that portion of the clause be removed. </p>
<p>To me, it’s just too unreasonable and the plaintiff atty should have insisted that it be excluded. I see it like this…my H has a top secret clearance, I can’t know the details of his job. Totally fine with that. But it would be silly for me not to be able to say that he has a job. </p>
<p>BTW…what would the punishment have been if the defendant had violated? Would another new lawsuit have to happen? </p>
<p>I think just the opposite, mom2collegekids. Plaintiff’s attorneys out there now have an easier time explaining the situation to their clients. All the lawyers have to do is point to the Snays, and tell their clients if the clients want to keep the settlement money, they must keep their mouths shut. Most people, on seeing their big bucks potentially slip away, will figure out how not to talk-- as most people have historically done in comparable situations.</p>
<p>If I’m sitting in the room, hammering out a deal with the people I’m suing, and they say, you can have $80,000 if you keep your mouth shut, I’ll find a way to zip my lip.</p>
<p>But that’s part of the reason I think this kind of non-disclosure agreement is so silly. It is almost impossible to keep or enforce to the letter precisely for the reason that m2ck is suggesting:</p>
<p>“Hey, dad - you know that lawsuit that we have discussed at length? The one that consumed our lives for months and caused big problems for me at school? What happened with that?”</p>
<p>There are a few ways to reasonably answer this question without going into specifics. You know what isn’t a reasonable answer? “It is over. That is all I am legally permitted to say.” At least, it isn’t reasonable, IMO, if you have any kind of a normal relationship with the members of your immediate family. At the very least (especially depending on the amount of the payout) you’re going to have to engage in transparent, wink-wink subterfuge that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement: “I can’t say anything, but, totally unrelated, we’re all going to Europe this summer!”</p>
<p>If D hadn’t posted to facebook, in all likelihood no one would ever have questioned it - but I think the chances that agreements like this are almost ever kept, under the strictest reading of the terms, are slim, and to me, that suggests that there is a problem with permitting them in the first place. </p>
<p>Now, an agreement that you can’t speak to the press/publish a book, etc, seems much more reasonable to me, and that might be framed in such a way that D’s public facebook declaration would indeed be a violation, but I can’t buy that it should be up to a lawyer or plaintiff to turn down a stipulation that is so facially absurd. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t understand why this is not reasonable. It would be the same if they had come into an inheritance, or gotten a big bonus at work. It’s not just what’s legal, it’s what is considered tactful and appropriate within a family. And it’s not like the daughter is looking at her parents’ bank statements every day, noticing that there is suddenly more money in their accounts and demanding answers. </p>
<p>Also, these are people who live in a very affluent community. A trip to Europe is probably not a life-changing event. The girl was likely just joking, or perhaps her father gave her the punch line when he blew the confidentiality agreement. </p>
<p>The “unfairness” of the language in the agreement is, imo, irrelevant. In this particular case, the plaintiff understood it and SIGNED it nevertheless. He didn’t have to. He could have negotiated that language, but he didn’t. It makes me wonder if he knew his chances of winning this lawsuit if it went to a jury trial were weak, so he simply took what he could get. If he told his daughter about the settlement in violation of the agreement but stressed that it was to remain a secret, then the daughter bears some responsibility here in my opinion. If he neglected to tell her that his agreement would be null and void if the NDA was violated, then it’s really and truly all on him and he has no right to grumble.</p>
<p>Sally, I kind of resent the implication that an adult child knowing information about her family’s financial situation is inappropriate or lacks tact. I don’t know precisely how much money my parents have, nor do I need to, but I did know when they got a substantial, although not totally life-altering, inheritance when my grandfather died when I was 21. This isn’t because I’m counting their money, but because a) there was some considerable family drama with my dad and his sister over the distribution of money, from which their relationship has never entirely recovered and b) it did have an influence on things like my father’s ability to retire a couple of years early, a general sense of financial stability, etc. In other words, it was something on my parents’ mind, for a variety of reasons other than “yipee, money!” and thus became something we shared because we are intensely close. They also know how much money I have, which has been very helpful for the purposes of financial planning.</p>
<p>More’s the pity, none of us are in the financial bracket where we can afford NOT to think about money. A a result, it sometimes comes up, and if it is something we feel comfortable discussing with each other, I don’t see why there is any blanket prohibition on doing so. I knew almost nothing about my family’s financial situation, which was at that time much more modest, when I was a child, because that isn’t something to burden a child with. Now that I’m an adult, why can’t we share these things, if we choose?</p>
<p>But this has wandered from the topic. </p>
<p>apprenticeprof, since in your family you want to be able to discuss money, you would clearly not agree to a non-disclosure cause. But just because you feel that way doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. I would have no problem zipping my lips if $80K were at stake, and other posters have said the same. Why would you deny us the ability to make this freely entered into agreement?</p>
<p>Nobody forced the dude to agree. The court didn’t order him to remain silent. Rather, he himself agreed to it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s also possible his attorney overlooked this factor for some reason. </p>
<p>Many attorneys taking contingency cases like this prefer taking on many cases all at once and settling them so there’s a steadier less risky source of revenue rather than taking his/her chances with a trial and unknowns like the judge and jury assigned to the case. </p>
<p>The latter is much more of a high risk/high reward situation where a few or even one serious loss could put the attorney’s practice into serious financial jeopardy.</p>
<p>Why even suggest that it was an oversight on the part of the attorney? R
There is ZEROevidence of this. Confidentiality agreements with settlements is not uncommon. And regardless of representation, plaintiffs should read these documents before they sign them. Surely the stipulations were discussed prior to signing. </p>
<p>Happened to see most of the movie Nebraska" on a recent flight. This thread and the legal scenario reminds me if the movie. Don’t know how the movie ended, though. Our Plane landed. </p>
<p>I agree with you @apprenticeprof and noted that earlier in a hypothetical. My kids are smart enough to know that if I’m suddenly replacing living room furniture and floors that needed to be replaced years ago or NOT saying repeatedly “We’ll need to save up for that” when there’s something we want, and they knew I’d been involved in a lawsuit, they would KNOW that I had won the lawsuit even if I never said anything. If I told my D “Sure, you can go do Semester at Sea this summer after all”, she would know I came into money somehow. They may not know details, but kids are aware. Kids are very aware. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am suggesting that as a possibility as the language is not just another garden variety non-disclosure clause, but extends to not allowing even the mention that it was settled. </p>
<p>The latter part is a bit unusual and most attorneys I’ve worked with/known would have challenged that part of the non-disclosure as being unreasonable as family members and even friends would have known the family was embroiled in a lawsuit or settlement negotiations. </p>
<p>Most non-disclosure clauses in settlements I’ve seen and read about would not include never being allowed to mention that the case settled as the language of the court documents in this case clearly stated. Most non-disclosure clauses I’ve seen*/heard about would usually cover not discussing the details of the settlement agreement, but not the fact a settlement was reached. </p>
<p>This is one part where I do feel apprenticeprof has a fairpoint. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant as the father signed and agreed to such terms including a non-disclosure clause which has a part that may arguably be considered unreasonably restrictive. </p>
<ul>
<li>In context of working at a biglaw firm.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>The likelihood that his counsel overlooked the wording of a non disclosure clause is exremely remote, extremely remote. </p>
<p>Non disclosures should be tightly worded. Makes no sense to say you can talk to some but not all, or that you can allude to the settlement but not the amount. Pretty common that the defendant will settle with that type of tightly confidentiality requirement. And as others have said the non disclosure clause can benefit both sides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have nothing against non-disclosure clauses which bar discussion of any details contained in settlement agreements as there are many legitimate and good public policy reasons for having them.</p>
<p>The sticking point is for non-disclosure clauses to extend to barring any mentioning of the fact the case has settled and thus, the mere existence of a settlement agreement period. </p>
<p>That’s the part most attorneys I’ve worked with and known would have challenged as they’d feel that’s not only unusually restrictive, but is unreasonable considering most immediate family and sometimes close friends would know a family/individual was involved in a lawsuit or a mediation of a dispute so they’d feel it’d be unreasonable and unusual for non-disclosure clauses to be written to the point one cannot even mention the case has settled. </p>
<p>^^^This guy apparently didn’t challenge it. Which makes one wonder if he had any kind of case at all, or he would have tried to get that language taken out. $80K is not that much money in terms of years of salary had his contract been extended. It sounds more like this was a nuisance suit to the school, who threw in a bit of money to get the guy to go away and quit bothering them. Doesn’t sound like he “won” in any real sense, contrary to what the daughter posted. I imagine that’s why the NDA was put in there with the terminology that was left in place, to avoid the appearance that they had done anything wrong or that they had lost a suit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One cannot rule out that possibility or the possibility the attorney hired by the plaintiff overlooked the detail for various other reasons. Would any attorneys here be willing to comment on this?</p>
<p>In any event, the time for challenging that part of the non-disclosure clause was BEFORE the plaintiff agreed to it by signing, not afterwards. </p>
<p>^^^Of course the time to challenge was before signing. </p>
<p>In this instance, I don’t believe there was any ignorance as to the meaning of the NDA. As part of the record are statements by the Dad saying he knew he was to say nothing to his daughter, but he decided he couldn’t abide by that. I think he just had no clue that the D would in turn broadcast it to the world. If she had kept this information to herself, the school would never have known that the plaintiff violated the NDA.</p>
<p>"" I think just the opposite, mom2collegekids. Plaintiff’s attorneys out there now have an easier time explaining the situation to their clients. All the lawyers have to do is point to the Snays, and tell their clients if the clients want to keep the settlement money, they must keep their mouths shut. Most people, on seeing their big bucks potentially slip away, will figure out how not to talk-- as most people have historically done in comparable situations.</p>
<p>If I’m sitting in the room, hammering out a deal with the people I’m suing, and they say, you can have $80,000 if you keep your mouth shut, I’ll find a way to zip my lip. “”"</p>
<p>I totally agree that the Snay Family will become the poster child for such situations. And hopefully plaintiffs will also think this thru and realize that it’s one thing to expect secrecy in regards to money amounts, but it’s ridiculous for plaintiffs to act as if a settlement and/or agreement was never reached. </p>
<p>"" But that’s part of the reason I think this kind of non-disclosure agreement is so silly. It is almost impossible to keep or enforce to the letter precisely for the reason that m2ck is suggesting:</p>
<p>“Hey, dad - you know that lawsuit that we have discussed at length? The one that consumed our lives for months and caused big problems for me at school? What happened with that?”"</p>
<p>And if I understand the terms correctly, the parents weren’t even permitted to say, “it’s been settled.” </p>
<p>That is ridiculous. </p>
<p>Luckily, I’ve had few incidents where I’ve needed to deal with attys on a professional basis. However, during those few times, they’ve been VERY good about alerting me to things that would either be unreasonable or unworkable. Snays’ attys likely didn’t stress that. They knew that the Snays had a near-adult child who knew about the lawsuit. They should have said, “we need to get this clause out otherwise you can’t even tell your d that the issue is settled or concluded. And that’s just not reasonable.”</p>