|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
I think that the accusation is a bit unjust. They were "technically
challenged" and believed the stuff that SCO presented in the beginning.
That lead them to being, in a sense, conned the same as the rest of them. They
ended up doing quite a bit of work for free.
The other, more important thing, is that they almost certainly did advise SCO to
give up at various points. You will never know because that's lawyer/client
privileged communication and certainly SCO is never going to admit to that. It
would be interesting, though, if there isn't by now someone out there with a
grudge who was in on that information and might later give it away.
There are other questions though; The certainly should have realised at some
point that their client was putting them in an untenable situation and asked the
courts permission to resign, contract or no contract. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
...that's all it is. We don't really know.
Did Boise Schiller advise SCO to drop the lawsuit? Probably.
Did they advise SCO to declare bankruptcy? Who knows?
There is one way to get out of a losing case: get fired by your client. The
downside is, if the new firm wins, you lose an awful lot of credibility. You'd
need metaphysical certainty that it's a lost cause, otherwise you take the
conservative approach and stay with it.
'Good' lawyers win cases, 'bad' ones don't. If you need a lawyer, get a 'good'
one, and let him do anything that's legal to help you.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
