NCAA sanctions: A different perspective...

[rimrockgriz]

Doesn't um do this, I have received a couple of these types of pamphlets from MSU, maybe that is part of the problem and why the NCAA didn't feel that um takes the NCAA rules seriously.

What? Just when has MSU sent out the so called pamphlets? I don't recall ever getting one? I'll call Josh Wanago and find out if that's true and report back. I for one don't need a pamphlet to know all the rule of the ncaa. I know enough just by not being a dip shit. There are somethings you just don't do. As I have stated before, the only thing the ncaa came up with that means two gobs of goat shit is the attorney's fee's. All the rest is so lame it's a joke. Oh, and if MSU sent us a ncaa pamphlet, I would wipe my ass with it. See you boys in November. If Chris stays at my house for this years game, I hope I don't have the same look on my face as I did after the 2011 game. I like my smiling face on the pic we took after the 2012 game. Being a good sport, even Chris was smile in that pic. He even pointed it out to me as we took the photo. That's why Chris Lynn has class in my book. Win or lose I will do the same.

I'm trying to figure what type of persona smiles after a "LOSS"... :loser:... :egriz:

The kind of people who are level-headed and realize that it's just a game and enjoy spending time with close friends, even if they are your rival.

I think you and "Prime" should make a Hallmark "chick" flick together. Ahhhh...call it "Stuck Between The Sheets"...tell "primp" to leave the rubber ducky at home. :egriz:

 

[Jerry Punch]

Criminal defense cannot be taken on a contingency basis, no exceptions. If it is a civil suit that's a different matter because ultimately the burden is on the attorney to make good business decisions and take cases that have a chance of being winners. The status of the athlete at that point would mean much less, because regardless of volleyball or football, the athlete would be judged on the merits of the case and the lawyer would still have the burden.

The law firm said, according to the report, said: "she was also representing the student-athlete on a contingency fee basis in a potential civil lawsuit against the local police department and reported that she repesented the student-athlete in the related criminal case without charge in consideration for him retaining her to represent him in his potential civil suit." The law firm also said they were using the criminal case to evaluate and set up the potential civil case. I am told by lawyer friends that it would not be uncommon for law firms not to charge for the criminal part of a matter is they were looking at or planning a later civil case on a contingency fee basis.

Those are two separate cases though - one a civil rights violation and another criminal defense. One would be taken on contingency and the other would be hourly. Combining the two for billing purposes is unethical and requires a major assumption:
1) Contingency fee recovered in civil case and pays to client the remainder. Whatever left over is presumably paid back to the attorney to cover hourly charge in criminal case.
2) Contingency fee not recovered because civil case either produces too little cash or is not won at all. Nothing refunded to client, nothing paid to attorney, and hourly charge in criminal case is still outstanding.

So, they are counting big time on recovering at least enough in the civil case to cover the criminal charges. That's a big gamble to take. At the end of the day, the criminal fee would still have to be documented on an hourly basis so as not to subject the firm to scrutiny by a state bar. A lawyer can and should have a vested interested in the outcome of a criminal case, but not a financial interest. To ensure objectivity and equal representation, they should be paid regardless of whether they win or lose.

These aren't the issues that affected UM athletes. Some football players got discounted legal fees. On the free market, it isn't likely that any one else would be able to accomplish that. Because of their status as football players, they got better access and discounted access to the legal system. That's the core of the problem, whether or not we get bogged down in a contingency versus hourly fee schedule.

 

[PlayerRep]

Criminal defense cannot be taken on a contingency basis, no exceptions. If it is a civil suit that's a different matter because ultimately the burden is on the attorney to make good business decisions and take cases that have a chance of being winners. The status of the athlete at that point would mean much less, because regardless of volleyball or football, the athlete would be judged on the merits of the case and the lawyer would still have the burden.

The law firm said, according to the report, said: "she was also representing the student-athlete on a contingency fee basis in a potential civil lawsuit against the local police department and reported that she repesented the student-athlete in the related criminal case without charge in consideration for him retaining her to represent him in his potential civil suit." The law firm also said they were using the criminal case to evaluate and set up the potential civil case. I am told by lawyer friends that it would not be uncommon for law firms not to charge for the criminal part of a matter is they were looking at or planning a later civil case on a contingency fee basis.

Those are two separate cases though - one a civil rights violation and another criminal defense. One would be taken on contingency and the other would be hourly. Combining the two for billing purposes is unethical and requires a major assumption:
1) Contingency fee recovered in civil case and pays to client the remainder. Whatever left over is presumably paid back to the attorney to cover hourly charge in criminal case.
2) Contingency fee not recovered because civil case either produces too little cash or is not won at all. Nothing refunded to client, nothing paid to attorney, and hourly charge in criminal case is still outstanding.

So, they are counting big time on recovering at least enough in the civil case to cover the criminal charges. That's a big gamble to take. At the end of the day, the criminal fee would still have to be documented on an hourly basis so as not to subject the firm to scrutiny by a state bar. A lawyer can and should have a vested interested in the outcome of a criminal case, but not a financial interest. To ensure objectivity and equal representation, they should be paid regardless of whether they win or lose.

These aren't the issues that affected UM athletes. Some football players got discounted legal fees. On the free market, it isn't likely that any one else would be able to accomplish that. Because of their status as football players, they got better access and discounted access to the legal system. That's the core of the problem, whether or not we get bogged down in a contingency versus hourly fee schedule.

A criminal case doesn't have to be done on hourly rates. A criminal case can be fixed fee, pro bono or hourly rates.

The two aspects of this one (criminal and civil) are very much related. There's nothing wrong with using a criminal matter to evaluate and set up a contingency fee civil case, setting aside the ncaa issue. In fact, it's not uncommon for criminal matters to be done just like this one appears to have been done. No charge for the small criminal matter because the work for the criminal case is helpful in evaluating and setting up the civil case.

As for the ncaa aspect, my view is that it should be okay for an athlete to receive the same treatment that a non-athlete would receive. Thus, the evaluation of the civil case would have to be genuine and not just a smoke screen. If the civil case looked like a good case, then my view is that the arrangement out to be okay under ncaa rules (because the pro bono part would not be an extra benefit and would be what a non-athlete would get).

Additionally, there is no requirement to pay legal fees up front or on any schedule. If there isn't risk of non-payment and the matter doesn't go on forever, legal fees are often paid at the end of the matter.

Legal fee arrangements are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Attorneys are supposed to disclose the fee arrangements to a third party, without the consent of the client. The ncaa shouldn't have the right to force disclosure of attorney-client privileged information, in my view. A university certainly shouldn't have the right to do that.

The ncaa's view on this subject seems to be evolving, as it looks like some schools have just started, in the last year or two, to inform law firms that they don't want the firms to provide pro bono services for athletes. See the below article which was previously posted in some thread.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578594142608224534.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GrizPony]

Correct on all points PR.