<p>^^^^^Maybe they did and the plaintiff didn’t go for it. Maybe he wanted to go ahead and settle and he just figured no one would know the difference if he told his D because he didn’t anticipate the “SUCK IT” action.</p>
<p>^^
Yes, it is possible that the attys told the plaintiff and his wife, “now, look at this clause. It’s not just saying that you can’t tell your D the amount. It is also saying that you can’t even tell her that the case is settled. You’re going to have to leave here and act like the case is forever in limbo - unsettled, still going on, etc. Can you live with that?” </p>
<p>However, my gut tells me that it’s not likely it was explained in such a way. And, it would seem that a smart atty would realize that such a situation wasn’t workable.</p>
<p>BTW…for how long must such a deal be kept a secret? 10 years? 50 years? If 50 years from now the D spilled the beans, could the school demand the money back?</p>
<p>This just seems to be unreasonable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s the part where I felt apprenticeprof had a fair point and why I was a bit surprised to see the non-disclosure clause written with the language to bar even mentioning that the case was settled. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, not every attorney is necessarily smart…or even competent. There are some who are slackers and/or are incompetent…such as the case of lawyers who sleep or are otherwise inattentive during the court hearing when they’re supposed to defend and counsel their clients. </p>
<p>The client was presumably an intelligent man, who hired an attorney he could work with and trusted. From what has been quoted about the client’s testimony, he knew he wasn’t supposed to disclose. It is now too late for hindsight by the client. </p>
<p>Not believing that attorneys would discuss the specifics of any case settlement verbiage with the IT guy. </p>
<p>Huh? We were very thorough in our settlement discussions. Made sure our clients understood all settlement terms and our recommendations. Always worked to get terms that would work for our clients and that they understood and would honor. It is a reflection on the attorney and client when settlement agreements run into these types of snags. </p>
<p>Right. You talk it over with your client. You don’t discus it casually or otherwise with an in-house IT guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the IT guy(s) were asked by the senior partner of the case concerned to be present at the discussions to ensure there are no technical snags during the meetings. Especially when said partner wasn’t comfortable with technology and there were issues with digitization of such agreements to comply with early electronic filing requirements with some court systems with its endemic teething issues. </p>
<p>Also, lost count of how many times I’ve had to double-check the electronic files sent to opposing counsel were produced correctly because it turned out opposing counsel had technical issues or used the wrong application to access the files. </p>
<p>they do not discuss confidential information in front of people who dont have the same ethical confidentiality requirements. And resending files does not authorize permission to read the contents. Thats clearly grounds for immediate termination. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The terms of my employment at the firm authorized me to access and read files if the senior partner or supervising attorneys of the case authorized it as part of my job to provide technical support for their case or in facilitating authorized electronic production of files to opposing counsel. It also authorized me to be present if ongoing technical support for a meeting…including settlement ones was required. </p>
<p>That included reading the files to ensure there was no corruption or other issues because opposing counsel couldn’t open the files or was unreadable. </p>
<p>they can notify tech support if a file is not readable. Please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do…and then our job is to figure out what went wrong, track down the issues…such as whether it’s on our end or opposing counsel’s end if we’re dealing with authorized electronic production, and if possible, fix it/provide an explanation. </p>
<p>That does not involve reading the content of confidential communications. Not wasting any more time on this. Yes we know you talk personally with someone about the very subject of every discussion on the parents cafe. Is quite astounding, really.</p>
<p>If anyone’s interested in reading something else on this case, here’s a law blog post on this topic: <a href=“http://blog.ceb.com/2014/03/07/loose-lips-on-facebook-sunk-settlement/”>http://blog.ceb.com/2014/03/07/loose-lips-on-facebook-sunk-settlement/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t want to waste time on this, then you may want to consider not trying to start arguments with others. </p>
<p>Especially when it’s apparent you don’t seem to understand that my employment contract did authorize me to view documents if it was authorized by senior partners of cases in order to provide technical support…especially dealing with technical issues. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just throwing this out there: is possibility we could not make this thread about you? :-?? </p>
<p>Weirdly enough, your posts have just about zero to do with anything related to this case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Until Jym started up with her snide comments, my posts were relevant as I was citing from my experience with attorneys how one part of that non-disclosure clause would have been challenged as it would have been considered too unreasonable and hard for most people to abide by. </p>
<p>It’s one thing to state no details of a settlement agreement is to be divulged. It’s another to ask parties to avoid mentioning the case has settled at all because that would imply an existence of a settlement agreement. Language which was clear in this case’s settlement terms as released in court record. </p>
<p>That part is a bit unusual from a logical standpoint as I agree with other posters that most immediate family members and friends would know whether one was involved in a lawsuit and settlement negotiations. </p>
<p>In any event, this is more of a discussion many future attorneys, clients, and law related forums are likely to be having to avoid being put into the situation the Snays ended up in…even if the father bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for violating such terms since he agreed to abide by them. </p>
<p>Spot on, Romani. </p>
<p>No argument started, cobrat, unless you did it. Simply said I didnt believe it. And not snide at all- simply blowing the BS whistle. But your calling attorneys slackers or incompetent, or relating it to attorneys who might fall asleep in the courtroom, now THAT is argumentative. And insulting. There is ZERO evidence of that here. As HImom said, the attorney would go over this with the client. Collegetime’s article speaks to this. But of course some firm attorneys in the past would have discussed the specifics of some case’s non-disclosure clause with you. Of course they would… :-" </p>
<p>Unless you were in on the negotiations re: this case you have no idea if they felt the terminology was too stringent or not, and why, or whether they did challenge the wording. The linked article (thank you collegetime for the good link) addresses that. And its not believable that you would have any idea what some attorney you worked with at some point in time would think about the verbiage of this clause in this case. </p>