Zion improper benefits allegations are back from the dead, again

[duke96]

I have no concern should Zion have to testify - as I fully anticipate that he will confirm no improper benefits.

I’d like to agree, although who knows what his family might have done. They feature quite centrally in the requests for admission.

Question for the legal stars on here - if the answer was a simple “no” to all the requests, why wouldn’t you just say so rather than spend time time and money (and sustain the drama) trying to avoid answering? I imagine (hope) there’s likely a good reason relating to the broader legal strategy on the case, but not sure what that would be.

[duke79]

I’d like to agree, although who knows what his family might have done. They feature quite centrally in the requests for admission.

Question for the legal stars on here - if the answer was a simple “no” to all the requests, why wouldn’t you just say so rather than spend time time and money (and sustain the drama) trying to avoid answering? I imagine (hope) there’s likely a good reason relating to the broader legal strategy on the case, but not sure what that would be.

You raise some valid points. One would certainly hope that Coach K, his assistants, or anyone else officially associated with Duke University would NEVER directly "pay off" (or be part of scheme, directly or indirectly, to funnel illegal benefits to) a player (or his family) to entice that player to come to Duke. I would be absolutely shocked if anything like that happened with Zion, (or his family), or any other recruit. But, as we have seen with Addidas scandal, I think there is a lot more going on under the surface with the whole recruiting process at many of the top basketball schools.

My guess is that this discovery is a "fishing" expedition by the Florida agent and her attorneys to try to put some leverage on Zion (and his family). And maybe Zion's attorneys have a valid reason that they don't even want him to simply answer "NO" to each of the questions about receiving benefits from Duke. Certainly, if I were his attorney, I would aggressively push back against having him give ANY answer to these "leading" questions.

But I guess we can't completely dismiss the possibility that the agent MIGHT have "something" on Zion or his family (some sort of benefit from a Duke supporter not officially tied into the university?) and his attorneys don't want him to falsely answer a question under oath.

My guess, also, is that the sooner Zion settles this matter and moves on with his life and career, everyone will be better off!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You raise some valid points. One would certainly hope that Coach K, his assistants, or anyone else officially associated with Duke University would NEVER directly "pay off" (or be part of scheme, directly or indirectly, to funnel illegal benefits to) a player (or his family) to entice that player to come to Duke. I would be absolutely shocked if anything like that happened with Zion, (or his family), or any other recruit.

My guess is that this discovery is a "fishing" expedition by the Florida agent and her attorneys to try to put some leverage on Zion (and his family). And maybe Zion's attorneys have a valid reason that they don't even want him to simply answer "NO" to each of the questions about receiving benefits from Duke. Certainly, if I were his attorney, I would aggressively push back against having him give ANY answer to these "leading" questions.

But I guess we can't completely dismiss the possibility that the agent MIGHT have "something" on Zion or his family (some sort of benefit from a Duke supporter not officially tied into the university?) and his attorneys don't want him to falsely answer a question under oath.

My guess, also, is that the sooner Zion settles this matter and moves on with his life and career, everyone will be better off!

Well, he can't move on with his career until the league starts back up. I'm sure this wouldn't be getting as much attention without the sports vacuum.

[AustinDevil]

You raise some valid points. One would certainly hope that Coach K, his assistants, or anyone else officially associated with Duke University would NEVER directly "pay off" (or be part of scheme, directly or indirectly, to funnel illegal benefits to) a player (or his family) to entice that player to come to Duke. I would be absolutely shocked if anything like that happened with Zion, (or his family), or any other recruit. But, as we have seen with Addidas scandal, I think there is a lot more going on under the surface with the whole recruiting process at many of the top basketball schools.

My guess is that this discovery is a "fishing" expedition by the Florida agent and her attorneys to try to put some leverage on Zion (and his family). And maybe Zion's attorneys have a valid reason that they don't even want him to simply answer "NO" to each of the questions about receiving benefits from Duke. Certainly, if I were his attorney, I would aggressively push back against having him give ANY answer to these "leading" questions.

But I guess we can't completely dismiss the possibility that the agent MIGHT have "something" on Zion or his family (some sort of benefit from a Duke supporter not officially tied into the university?) and his attorneys don't want him to falsely answer a question under oath.

My guess, also, is that the sooner Zion settles this matter and moves on with his life and career, everyone will be better off!

Zion broke the contract shortly after signing it. There are good reasons he should have settled this quickly even if he were completely innocent of the allegations that he/his family took improper benefits. That he hasn't done so makes me think that the allegations are likely not true--but, if that's the case, in the process he may learn a hard but valuable lesson about why nuisance suits get paid off.

[nmduke2001]

Well, he can't move on with his career until the league starts back up. I'm sure this wouldn't be getting as much attention without the sports vacuum.

I disagree. This is Zion and Duke. If it comes back that benefits were paid and Duke, K, or a K proxy knew, it will be front page news even with everything else going on in the world.

[Saratoga2]

Zion broke the contract shortly after signing it. There are good reasons he should have settled this quickly even if he were completely innocent of the allegations that he/his family took improper benefits. That he hasn't done so makes me think that the allegations are likely not true--but, if that's the case, in the process he may learn a hard but valuable lesson about why nuisance suits get paid off.

Zion's lawyers argue that there never was a contract to break and there are $100,000,000 good reasons to fight this case. Lets see how this case moves forward. Zion filed his case before this so lets see how this plays out.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I disagree. This is Zion and Duke. If it comes back that benefits were paid and Duke, K, or a K proxy knew, it will be front page news even with everything else going on in the world.

Well, that is a huge "if" and I agree. If K knew or was involved, it's a literal game changer.

But allegations and chatter would not be front page news if there were other actual sports happening.

[yancem]

Zion's lawyers argue that there never was a contract to break and there are $100,000,000 good reasons to fight this case. Lets see how this case moves forward. Zion filed his case before this so lets see how this plays out.

I think that a major reason this case hasn't settled, let a lone quickly, is that Prime Sports wants way too much money. If they had said, hey we spent X hours working on marketing leads and X resources so let's settle on $2-5 million. Still a rip-off but I'm betting Zion's new agent would have shelled that out for him to make it all go away.

[ice-9]

Yes, $100 million is a ridiculous figure. Designed to grab PR headlines, no way they're actually expecting a settlement of that size.

As for saying no under oath, it's a risk that Zion shouldn't take if possible.

He may truthfully believe that there is no impropriety from him and his family.

But what if a distant uncle who hates the family had covertly used Zion's name to get a benefit? What if the uncle claims Zion knew about it? Now it's not just about money, Zion could be charged with perjury.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

FL judge grants temporary stay in favor of Zion and team...

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...nefits-inquiry

Anybody else catch Stephen A mouthing off yesterday about how he knows Willie Gary personally and that he is the “real deal” and all that? What a buffoon.

[budwom]

I'm wondering if settlement offers have already been made...I'd be surprised if they hadn't...I guess they'll have to weigh the cost of litigation plus chances of losing...

[Pghdukie]

I think both sides feel strongly about their cases and that no settlement offers have been discussed. Discovery issues can make for an interesting "ingreeedient". Testimony under oath may or may not move the balance of power in this case. If no benefits were given to Zion or family - out goes the lady's chance. If thru Discovery there were benefits - OUCH ! Just my opinion

[53n206]

FL judge grants temporary stay in favor of Zion and team...

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...nefits-inquiry

Anybody else catch Stephen A mouthing off yesterday about how he knows Willie Gary personally and that he is the “real deal” and all that? What a buffoon.

Why would anyone ever listen to Stephen A,?

[budwom]

Why would anyone ever listen to Stephen A,?

Because he's shouting so much and I can hear him even when I go to the kitchen for a snack to get away from him.

[Dopeshop]

MY CAREER WAS AS A TRIAL LAWYER ,BUT FOR ALMOST HALF (23 YEARS ) ,I WAS A MEDIATOR .I mediated 1100 or so lawsuits and around 85% resolved as a result of mediation. It's a breath of fresh air for the parties who are tired of lawyers and judges and juries telling them the answer to the their important, and often personal, matters .


There are no limits to what the parties can include in a settlement --not so in litigation where it's thumbs up or thumbs down . An early mentor told me ,no case can be settled "until the fees have matured. "

The settlement of publicity averse cases always include a carefully negotiated joint statement which is the ONLY thing given out .

The sooner this is out of the news world, the better (especially for Zion and Duke Nation). The corporate sports mind has the attention span of a two year old and will move on quickly.

Confidentiality of the entire process helps a lot ,but the "want to " factor drives it . If either party has no interest in trying to find common ground , then mediation is not the right place .

[duke96]

MY CAREER WAS AS A TRIAL LAWYER ,BUT FOR ALMOST HALF (23 YEARS ) ,I WAS A MEDIATOR .I mediated 1100 or so lawsuits and around 85% resolved as a result of mediation. It's a breath of fresh air for the parties who are tired of lawyers and judges and juries telling them the answer to the their important, and often personal, matters .


There are no limits to what the parties can include in a settlement --not so in litigation where it's thumbs up or thumbs down . An early mentor told me ,no case can be settled "until the fees have matured. "

The settlement of publicity averse cases always include a carefully negotiated joint statement which is the ONLY thing given out .

The sooner this is out of the news world, the better (especially for Zion and Duke Nation). The corporate sports mind has the attention span of a two year old and will move on quickly.

Confidentiality of the entire process helps a lot ,but the "want to " factor drives it . If either party has no interest in trying to find common ground , then mediation is not the right place .

Legal advice I had always received is that mediation oftentimes meets in the middle, so if you think you are actually right and have a winnable case then it's not preferable.

PS - maybe I am confusing this with arbitration...

[Thurber Whyte]

The Sports Illustrated article linked above gives a good and detailed summary of the litigation. After reading that and giving it some thought, I think the way we have been framing it is a little bit off. We have been treating Gina Ford as an interloper who somehow got to a naive Zion Williamson and his family and locked him into a bad deal. From the article, it seems that Ford is a real agent who represents other professional athletes. She may not have been an obvious choice, but she does not seem to be an obviously wrong one either.

On that count, I still have a big question about how her contract came together. When I was at the law school 30 years ago, there was a committee made up of law professors with a background and interest in contracts and sports agency. The committee’s function was to help Duke basketball players and any other athletes who might have opportunities to play professionally screen and interview agents and pick the most reputable and effective ones. Basketball players were strongly encouraged if not poked and prodded to participate in this process. I know that this process was still in place as of a few years ago and, with the amounts of money at stake today, has only grown in importance. I am really curious as to both Williamson’s and Ford’s relationships to that process and, if Williamson went outside of it, why.

Ford was the sponsorship agent. CAA was the sports agent. CAA also does sponsorship agency. It does not look to me that Williamson necessarily had second thoughts about the Ford contract. The most likely scenario to me is that CAA wanted the sponsorship business as well, and when they entered the picture, asked to see the Ford contract and found an obvious way to void it. CAA’s attorneys are the ones litigating the case and apparently picking up the costs. Given the exposure to liability and reputational risks from the litigation, one could ask whether CAA is a good or malign influence on Williamson and whether it is really acting in Williamson’s best interests or its own. The purpose of this exercise by CAA should be to get more dollars for Williamson all things considered and not just enrich itself.

That you for your post, Thurber. Why would Gina Ford engage a flamboyant plaintiff's attorney like Mr. Gary for her case, which is essentially a dispute over conflicting contracts? Wouldn't you want a top-notch business attorney with a strong background in entertainment and representation contracts? Then, presumably, the pile generated by Zion gets divided -- or Zion gets to pay each agent twice for some of the services.

Zion broke the contract shortly after signing it. There are good reasons he should have settled this quickly even if he were completely innocent of the allegations that he/his family took improper benefits. That he hasn't done so makes me think that the allegations are likely not true--but, if that's the case, in the process he may learn a hard but valuable lesson about why nuisance suits get paid off.

Sagegrouse raised a very good point here. (Sorry, I had to disappear for a while a few weeks ago to grade papers.) Interpretation of a contract is done by a judge not a jury so you need a litigator who has good technical understanding of contracts law and a strong motions practice. From the article, it looks as if Ford had a very good firm with those capabilities representing her in the early stages. The entry of Willie Gary now makes sense to me if the goal is to force a settlement. That seems to be his specialty. I appreciate the Civ Pro insights from the other attorneys here because that is not my thing. As best I can tell, Ford does not have a strong case on the merits at all and the procedural posture is shaky. If Ford does not want to leave empty handed, threatening to try the case in the court of public opinion seems her best way forward.

One final thought: Williamson, an apparently amiable and well-meaning young man, seems like an innocent abroad, caught up in a game of backstabbing and double dealing under the influence of his various and erstwhile agents. Contract law is by its very design is amoral and efficiency maximizing. As Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, every contract is an option contract in the sense that parties have the option to perform or pay damages. With doctrines such as efficient breach, the law explicitly agrees. I do not begrudge CAA its power play. Their estimation that the cost of breach is close to $0 is not unreasonable. I do not begrudge Ford’s attorneys for at least asking questions as long as long as they avoid outright innuendo. I want Williamson to come out of this without his reputation being damaged fairly or unfairly. However, if I were advising the agents involved, I am not sure that I would recommend anything different. Avoiding this sort of untidiness in the first place is one of the purposes of the Law School’s advisory committee.

[duke2x]

Legal advice I had always received is that mediation oftentimes meets in the middle, so if you think you are actually right and have a winnable case then it's not preferable. PS - maybe I am confusing this with arbitration...

Arbitration is more of a private judge that can produce a binding award equivalent to a trial--you lose, you pay. You prefer it when you want to avoid something in the legal process (publicity, a particular judge, technical material). Mediation can trend toward a middle value, but a good mediator should tell you when your position is ethical but ultimately frivolous. You sometimes hope that the client hears the mediator as a voice of reason when you are stuck with ethical frivolity--take/pay the money and run, Billy Joe/Bobbie Sue.

[Jim3k]

Sagegrouse raised a very good point here. *** Interpretation of a contract is done by a judge not a jury ...

True...up to a point. Sometimes jurors must decide what the original intent of the parties was and/or determine the meaning of an ambiguity. I paste the California jury instructions as an example:

314.Interpretation—Disputed Words

[Name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] dispute the meaning of the

following words in their contract: [insert disputed language].

[Name of plaintiff] claims that the words mean [insert plaintiff’s

interpretation]. [Name of defendant] claims that the words mean [insert

defendant’s interpretation]. [Name of plaintiff] must prove that [his/her/its]

interpretation is correct.

In deciding what the words of a contract mean, you must decide what

the parties intended at the time the contract was created. You may

consider the usual and ordinary meaning of the language used in the

contract as well as the circumstances surrounding the making of the

contract.

AFAIK, no one on the Board knows what the exact language is, at least not yet. So until we do, judge or jury as a decider is largely abstract. In any event, the Florida state court may not be involved.

[beach rev]

The latest:
https://apple.news/AAq7PSmDvRE2zQqOzIjaXCg

Attorneys representing Zion Williamson's former marketing manager have asked a federal judge in North Carolina to deny the New Orleans Pelicans star's motion for partial judgment and allow them to conduct discovery into his parents' living arrangements and financial history before and while he played at Duke.