Yo, Lawyer Types! Frame the key legal issue(s) in a possible Leach v Tt action.

[TexasLidig8r]

My 2 cents worth...


Third, yes, Tech had the right to fire Leach. However, since he had a very specific written employment agreement, they could be liable for the amount Leach would have been paid under the contract,.. however...


Fifth, the timing of the firing is highly suspect. Remember last year when Leach was in essence, "holding up" Tech for more money when the Washington and Auburn jobs came open... Apparently, emails are coming to the public eye now from last year in which the chancellor and AD were very pissed about this situation. Tech's football program is not running a huge profit. Leach won his annual average of 8 games this year (84 wins in 10 years)... he was due to be paid $800K on Dec 31. The James' kid is going to be the sacrifical lamb... Tech used him as the excuse to pull the plug on Leach.

Sixth.. can the chancellor and AD be implicated as well. If I am Leach's attorney, I name the chancellor and AD in their individual capacity (based in part on the emails from last year and points 2 - 5) as party defendants under a civil conspiracy scheme to (1). breach Leach's contract, and (2). defame Leach. Remember over the course of the past few days, Tech has issued a number of press releases and affidavits attempting to win the start of the PR war. Why? What was the intent? Their is no current litigation. Obviously, it is an attempt to win the court of public opinion. If and when, factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies are shown in the affidavits, Tech (and presumably the AD and Chancellor) will have to answer as to why these affidavits were released other than to attempt to defame Leach since they knew or should have known that their actions would make it even that much moe difficult for any other school to employ Leach. For example, in the affidavit issued by the good doctor, he stated putting the James' kid in the equipment room was not following the standard of care. Well, the medical standard of care is not at issue in that respect. The good doctor already said that that conduct did not harm James or exacerbate any alleged injury. Therefore, the good doctor's opinion is completely irrelevant as to whether Leach's conduct violated any standard of conduct directed at athletes from coaches.

Seventh, if the AD and Chancellor are named in their capacity as Tech employees, but also, in their individual capacities, then, you have the likelihood of more insurance (errors and omissions, professional liability) being implicated thus, additional deep pockets.

Therefore, Leach sues Tech, the Chancellor and AD, both in their capacities as employees and in their individual capacity, for breach of contract, defamation, libel and slander, name John Doe defendants as possible defendants also involved in a conspiracy and continue the war.

Sometimes.. I'm so smart....

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/351139/Leach_4th_Amended_Petition.pdf

Here is the Pirate's 4th Amended Petition...

He has now included the AD... the Chancellor, University President... and...

Craig James....

NOW the case is interesting!!! :D

[NormanPride]

Hell yes. Take those asses down!

[texaspokieokie]

hope leach wins !!!

[47straight]

The vast majority of cases are settled at mediation

I know the vast majority of cases settle, but at mediation?

[AlbqSooner]

In Texas, although there is not a rule in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, every state district court judge requires every case to go to mediation before it's tried. The reasons are many.

Second, it reduces the costs and attorney's fees incurred by all parties. If a case can be resolved at mediation and one side believes they paid too much and the other side believes they did not receive enough, the belief is that the settlement is fair.

Oh yeah, it gets interesting now. Lid previously mentioned the effect of costs and attorney fees incurred by all parties on the decision to settle a case at mediation.

By naming several of the defendants in their individual, as well as their representative capacities, Leach has left the University and Board of Regents facing the question of whether it constitutes as conflict of interest for them to provide legal representation to those defendants. That is to say, those defendants named in their individual capacities need to obtain legal representation that is INDEPENDENT of the University and Board of Regents.

Hence, the cost of poker just went up.:D

As far as the majority of cases being settled at mediation, I will not question that such is Lid's experience. My experience has been that far more cases settle about a week or so after mediation when both sides have had time to sleep on what transpired at mediation. I suppose every attorney has had different experiences with settlement at mediation, but I suggest that the majority of cases settle because of mediation.

[Okla-homey]

As far as the majority of cases being settled at mediation, I will not question that such is Lid's experience. My experience has been that far more cases settle about a week or so after mediation when both sides have had time to sleep on what transpired at mediation. I suppose every attorney has had different experiences with settlement at mediation, but I suggest that the majority of cases settle because of mediation.

I generally agree. However I have found mediation less effective in achieving a settlement when said mediation is conducted too early. In complex cases, mediation should not occur until after discovery cut-off and after the court has ruled on any dispositive motions. At that point, both sides have a good understanding of the case they are about to take to trial. Principal exception is in relatively simple cases, when liability is not really in serious dispute and its mostly about damages calculations. Those cases can often be successfully mediated after the parties' depositions and the defendant has accomplished his independent medical exam.

[KantoSooner]

I like the Leach team's approach to making it personal. Bureaucrats will fight to the last man....when it's someone else's money. Put THEIR house and car on the block and suddenly their balls shrink.

[Okla-homey]

I like the Leach team's approach to making it personal. Bureaucrats will fight to the last man....when it's someone else's money. Put THEIR house and car on the block and suddenly their balls shrink.

Mebbe, but I bet the State of Texas, and or its various liability insurers, will s pay for these TTU guys' defense. As an aside, corporations typically have directors and officers (D&O) policies that cover these sorts of things, specifically as to the business decisions made by such officers. The upshot is, I bet none of the guys personally named will ever pay a dime out of their own pockets even if the Pirate does win some sort of judgment. Just my opinion mind you. Worth precisely what you paid for it.;)

[47straight]

I haven't seen mediation ever work, but my practice is admittedly a little different than normal business litigation.

[TexasLidig8r]

I haven't seen mediation ever work, but my practice is admittedly a little different than normal business litigation.

Mediation is incredibly effective in non-complex cases (which constitutes about 75% percent of all litigation).

If you can get the parties to start discussing dollars and cents instead of the myriad other issues in the case, the job is 3/4 of the way done.

If there are multiple parties with multiple insurers, cross claims and non-monetary relief sought, mediation is less successful.

In federal court, more and more courts are going to mandatory settlement conferences conducted by the U.S. Magistrate. Parties are mandated to appear and have to stay as long as the Magistrate wants them to.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oh yeah, it gets interesting now. Lid previously mentioned the effect of costs and attorney fees incurred by all parties on the decision to settle a case at mediation.

By naming several of the defendants in their individual, as well as their representative capacities, Leach has left the University and Board of Regents facing the question of whether it constitutes as conflict of interest for them to provide legal representation to those defendants. That is to say, those defendants named in their individual capacities need to obtain legal representation that is INDEPENDENT of the University and Board of Regents.

Can't the employees of TTU argue that they were acting in their capacity as employees of a state agency and, therefore, can only be sued in that capacity?

I didn't see it, but why would Craig James be mentioned at all?

[Okla-homey]

Can't the employees of TTU argue that they were acting in their capacity as employees of a state agency and, therefore, can only be sued in that capacity?

I didn't see it, but why would Craig James be mentioned at all?

I bet they have, and thus the Pirate's claims are probably asserted under 42 USC sec. 1983 -- or something equally specious.;)

[TUSooner]

Can't the employees of TTU argue that they were acting in their capacity as employees of a state agency and, therefore, can only be sued in that capacity?

I didn't see it, but why would Craig James be mentioned at all?

Section 1983 is for suing state actors in their individual capacities for constitutional violations. There's no vicarious liability, but the school can be sued for its actions/inactions/policies & practices, which would appear to be the case here.

[AlbqSooner]

As for why Craig James would be mentioned, read the Complaint which is linked. I find that getting the facts before posing questions is generally a good thing.:rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

As for why Craig James would be mentioned, read the Complaint which is linked. I find that getting the facts before posing questions is generally a good thing.:rolleyes:

If I could search the doc, I would have looked it up. But I'm not going to take all that time to read it. I was just curious.

[Okla-homey]

Section 1983 is for suing state actors in their individual capacities for constitutional violations. There's no vicarious liability, but the school can be sued for its actions/inactions/policies & practices, which would appear to be the case here.

eggzackly. And under the landmark case of LaFoote v. Cap'n Crunch, 234 U.S. 313 (1971), pirates are a protected class and Leach was discriminated against by these various state actors in violation of the the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments merely because of his membership in said class.

;)

[StoopTroup]

As for why Craig James would be mentioned, read the Complaint which is linked. I find that getting the facts before posing questions is generally a good thing.:rolleyes:

What about the old ditty..."Never ask a question you already know the answer fer?"

[StoopTroup]

Medication is incredibly effective in non-complex cases

Glad to see you finally took OUr advice and saw a Doctor.

[olevetonahill]

Glad to see you finally took OUr advice and saw a Doctor.

I think his new bride might have gave him something Oral Roberts caint Pray off .:eek:

[Leroy Lizard]

What about the old ditty..."Never ask a question you already know the answer fer?"

Do you guys really want me to look up the answer for you?

[MeMyself&Me]

Glad to see you finally took OUr advice and saw a Doctor.

Since when did they come up with ani-whoren medication?

[olevetonahill]

Since when did they come up with ani-whoren medication?

Its been around fer years

http://www.sarwark.org/writings/uploaded_images/prep-h-1-764789.jpg

[GottaHavePride]

His complaint against James looks like it's related to Tortious Interference, Defamation, and Conspiracy.

EDIT: He's basically saying Tech never wanted to pay him what they agreed to in his last contract extension, so they all (including Craig James) got together and made up their own falsified version of what happened, which Tech then used as an excuse to can him.

He's also claiming that Tech's own operating procedures waive sovereign immunity in the case of an employee complaint or termination decisions.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wouldn't it be nice if civil court was about seeking what you justly deserve based purely on the evidence and the truth?

[GottaHavePride]

Well, IF events actually went down as summarized in that petition by Leach, then I'd say he probably deserves to squeeze them for every cent he can get.


Especially considering the part where before any of the "concussion" incident happened Leach said Adam James put forth lousy effort and demoted him to third team, at which point James shouted "F*** this!" in front of coaches and other players and stormed out. Right after that Leach claims he started getting harassing phone calls from Craig James.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, IF events actually went down as summarized in that petition by Leach, then I'd say he probably deserves to squeeze them for every cent he can get.

My gut feeling is that such a thing never did happen and Leach's lawyer is simply trumping this up as a strategy.


Especially considering the part where before any of the "concussion" incident happened Leach said Adam James put forth lousy effort and demoted him to third team, at which point James shouted "F*** this!" in front of coaches and other players and stormed out. Right after that Leach claims he started getting harassing phone calls from Craig James.

So what? I don't see how Adam James' actions are even material at this point. What really matters is whether Leach's treatment of James followed proper protocol, which to me appears completely irrelevant to James' attitude.

Leach either went over the line in his treatment of James, or he didn't.

As for Craig James, I don't see how his phone calls make any difference. A parent can snort all they want, but Tech still didn't have to fire Leach.

BTW, only a psycho would call a prominent media reporter and try to arrange a conspiracy to oust a coach.

[GottaHavePride]

So what? I don't see how Adam James' actions are even material at this point. What really matters is whether Leach's treatment of James followed proper protocol, which to me appears completely irrelevant to James' attitude.

Leach either went over the line in his treatment of James, or he didn't.

As for Craig James, I don't see how his phone calls make any difference. A parent can snort all they want, but Tech still didn't have to fire Leach.

BTW, only a psycho would call a prominent media reporter and try to arrange a conspiracy to oust a coach.

I agree on most of this.

However, the way the brief is written, Adam James' behavior is what caused the treatment. He showed up in street clothes and sunglasses, but team rules say that even if you aren't cleared to practice you show up in proper practice attire and at least "walk the field" if you're capable. Apparently James showed up in street clothes and acted like he was too cool to be there, so Leach had him removed from practice because he was distracting the rest of the team.

And Craig James' complaints wouldn't have meant crap, except Leach is claiming Tech brass was already looking for any excuse to get out of paying Leach's contract.

Like I said, if Leach's petition is even half close to accurate, I'd say he has a good shot on the breach of contract / wrongful termination stuff. Sticking anything to Craig James is tougher, except maybe defamation, if James has been ruining Leach's reputation with deliberately false information.

[AlbqSooner]

What really matters is whether Leach's treatment of James followed proper protocol, which to me appears completely irrelevant to James' attitude.

Again, if you follow the link to the complaint and ACTUALLY READ IT your posts will seem less uninformed.

I suspect that if any of your students began pontificating on one of your lectures without having read the materials made available to them you would be, at least, marginally apoplectic.

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree on most of this.

However, the way the brief is written, Adam James' behavior is what caused the treatment. He showed up in street clothes and sunglasses, but team rules say that even if you aren't cleared to practice you show up in proper practice attire and at least "walk the field" if you're capable. Apparently James showed up in street clothes and acted like he was too cool to be there, so Leach had him removed from practice because he was distracting the rest of the team.

Removing Adam from practice is not the issue. What is important is not whether the punishment fit the crime, but whether the punishment itself was overly severe and/or humiliating.

Let me use an extreme example to clarify my point: If Leach had taken Adam out and shot him, it wouldn't matter whether Adam stole money, pissed in the coach's desk, or flipped him the bird. And that is probably what Tech is going to argue: That trying the "he deserved it" angle won't work here.


And Craig James' complaints wouldn't have meant crap, except Leach is claiming Tech brass was already looking for any excuse to get out of paying Leach's contract.

Doesn't matter. Craig James can't be held responsible for the inner-office politics of Tech. He heard his son was being mistreated, so he complained. The fact that Leach's job was in the balance is not his fault, nor his problem.


Like I said, if Leach's petition is even half close to accurate, I'd say he has a good shot on the breach of contract / wrongful termination stuff.

I won't argue with you there.


Sticking anything to Craig James is tougher, except maybe defamation, if James has been ruining Leach's reputation with deliberately false information.

If I'm Tech's lawyer, here is what I would argue:

If you had a prominent media representative calling you requesting special favors, you were obligated to report this to the athletic director. Furthermore, you clearly indicated that James left voice mail messages on your phone. The fact that you didn't bother saving the messages indicates that no such messages ever likely existed. (I'm assuming that the messages no longer exist. I haven't read the doc.)

If I'm a coach and an ESPN reporter calls me wanting special favors, I'm reporting it. I sure as Hell going to save the messages. If he didn't do so, he is negligent to the point where his testimony is dubious.

Well, I'd try.

One more point: Leach had better be careful here. He's getting to the point where no one is going to want to hire him. For example, if it comes out that he in fact threatened to play Craig James' voice mail to the entire team, I don't want him near my football team. Why pay for trouble when you can get it free?

[Leroy Lizard]

Again, if you follow the link to the complaint and ACTUALLY READ IT your posts will seem less uninformed.

I suspect that if any of your students began pontificating on one of your lectures without having read the materials made available to them you would be, at least, marginally apoplectic.

I'm not going to read it. I enjoy discussing the case, but it doesn't matter enough to me to take the time. Why is it so important to you that you would bother caring enough to read it? I don't give a rat's **** what happens to Tech, Leach, Adam, or Craig.

At all.

I just think it's an interesting conversation piece.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Maybe he just wants to offer an informed opinion.

[AlbqSooner]

I'm not going to read it. I enjoy discussing the case, but it doesn't matter enough to me to take the time. Why is it so important to you that you would bother caring enough to read it? I don't give a rat's **** what happens to Tech, Leach, Adam, or Craig.

At all.

I just think it's an interesting conversation piece.

This confirms what many on here have suspected. You would rather prattle on about things of which you have no knowledge. :D

[MeMyself&Me]

Got bored sitting at an airport with nothing to do but use the internet and read the depositions that were filed by Tech. It didn't include all parts of all the depositions and I am NOT a lawyer but this is what I came away with from what was filed:

Leach may have a hard time showing there was a conspiracy to fire him. All three of the stooges stories seem to come together in saying they did not want to terminate him until Leach went to the media and started talking about filing a temporary restraining order. The only people that seem to be shown to have an interest in firing Leach are the Jameses and two members of the board of regents who all three of the stooges say don't influence their decisions.

Beyond that, it's hard to side with Tech and that's with TECH's part of the filing.

Myers had a hard time explaining in 'common sense' terms how they could circumvent the '10 day' part of the 'for cause' part of Leach's contract. I think, if this were in court, Leach's attorney wouldn't have much of a hard time destroying that by pointing out that they were willing to accept an apology from Leach as a 'cure' to the problem based on their own actions.

It appears that Tech's own investigation determined that Leach had done nothing wrong. Not only that, but Leach was a willing participant in the investigation. There are only three times when he wasn't fully participating and compliant with the investigation/procedings:

1) In the first meeting with Hance where Hance told Leach that one of the board members wanted to fire Leach and another was considering wanting it and that Leach needed to work with Hance. Leach went a bit out of control.

2) When Leach was asked to sign the letter basically accepting that he'd done something wrong and apologize to the James family, he refused.

3) When they suspended him for not signing the letter, he talked about it in the media and started to file a temporary restraining order.

Given that Tech's own investigation appeared to show he'd done nothing wrong (except for maybe use of foul language), it's hard to fault him for these 'transgressions'. Each of them were in relation to his job security.

The stooge's contention that the action was meant to 'punish and humiliate' Adam James because of the language he used is going to be hard to hold weight when their own investigation showed that he didn't say it within earshot of the rest of the team and it had to be repeated to James for him to hear it and that being in a darkened room may have helped James's recovery according to the investigation. Also, Leach's statements that he was removing a distraction from the team and that he didn't require him to do anything that wasn't necessary of the rest of the team (standing) really do make sense when you play the entire events back from what is told in those depositions. It really seems, these guys got stuck on the 'but the poor kid had a concussion' bit without thinking about whether it was really harmful to have him do what he was told to do.

The James's are absolute and maybe even habitual liars... both the Tech stooges and the Leach camp agree on things that the James's dispute. This will hurt Craig James in any defamation part of the case that goes forward I think.

Tech is going to have a hard time justifying (if they need too... I don't know that they do) the need to have Leach sign that letter given some of the language in it. 'On going investigation' when it was already done and so forth. Also there's the whole, 'this will all be behind us' part regarding him signing the letter, yet it's not 'curable' supposedly.

The stooges actually say that they decided they needed to fire Leach once he went to the media because they felt the relationship had deteriorated to a point that it was no longer workable. The part that I find funny there is, then they're not firing due to the Adam James incident are they? Then, it's not 'for cause' either right?


Anyway, it's easy to see how this played out chronologically when reading these things out in the depositions. Leach didn't for once feel he'd done anything wrong and cooperated fully with the investigation. Investigation determined he hadn't done anything wrong. Tech's administration acted like Leach had done something wrong anyway. Leach reacted negatively to the way that the administration was handling it. Then Leach was fired.

Really though, I can understand why Leach was fired at the point he was fired. After all, I would consider the relationship unfix-able at that point. However, that would be 'not for cause', right? However, the situation that created the unfix-able point appears to be the insistence that Leach acted inappropriately in spite of the facts that showed he didn't (according to Tech's own investigation). Still hoping we see this in court. :)


By the way, there are a lot of people that seem to think we will not here what happens in the end due to the fact they will settle and the settlement will contain a confidentiality clause of some sort. Can that really circumvent the Freedom of Information Act? I don't know really, just that it seems like anything related to public institutions ends up being public knowledge due to the Freedom of Information Act.

Anybody else actually read the depositions that are available right now. I got them from links here:

http://www.doubletnation.com/2010/5/6/1460333/leach-and-james-fire-back-world

I did not read the actual 'motion to dismiss' though. I was curious about the depositions mainly and ran out of time there.

[Leroy Lizard]

This confirms what many on here have suspected. You would rather prattle on about things of which you have no knowledge. :D

I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. So I ask questions about the case.

I'm not going to study the case, however, as if I'm defending a dissertation on it. I spend too much time on SF as it is; I don't need to devote my life to all things Leach.

[Leroy Lizard]

One more point: None of this would have happened if everyone had just acted professionally.

1. If Adam James had not been such an ***, none of this would have mattered.

2. If Craig James had only let his adult son handle his own problems, none of this would have likely happened. (Although that isn't a given.)

3. If Leach had acted like a professional head coach instead of a rogue jackass, none of this would have happened.

4. If Tech would have followed proper guidelines and respect for contractual obligations, none of this would have happened.

Gee, I wonder why we have rules in place for proper behavior?

[MeMyself&Me]

I normally wouldn't care about this but I found it soooo close to the Leach fiasco, I about fell off the couch laughing. Saw it on ABC World News last night:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/biden-team-apologizes-to-reporter-for-sticking-him-in-closet.html

[fossil]

I am waiting on a retainer...

:confused: C'mon now, a little probono (or is it pro-bono?) work ain't gonna hurt ya!