Sally on Roger

BradyFTW! said:

It would be incredible if this happened. This would be the true a-bomb against the league's integrity, as I think we're all pretty well aware of what would come to light. I would expect the NFL--citing attorney-client privilege--to drop the case entirely rather than comply with this order.

Click to expand...

No, they would not drop the case over attorney-client privilege, I think they would seize on that as a chance to delay and drag it out and appeal. Otoh if they are looking for an opportunity to cave they might use it, but that would be contrary to everything else they've done. And if they were going to, they could do it anyway.

QuantumMechanic said:

Won't happen. A federal judge would know better than to issue an order that would violate attorney-client privilege (which would clearly apply to NFL/Pash) and if he did, the NFL would fight the order and very likely get it quashed.

Click to expand...

Was Wells acting as counsel when doing the investigation? Might find it is not quashed. Or that if it is quashed that calls into question whether it was an independent investigation, or the preparation of an indictment.

juny said:

Any links to what Chatham is referring to?

Click to expand...

Not sure, but wondering if it relates to this: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...oner-roger-goodell-testimony-ray-rice-hearing

n6249c said:

Was Wells acting as counsel when doing the investigation? Might find it is not quashed. Or that if it is quashed that calls into question whether it was an independent investigation, or the preparation of an indictment.

Click to expand...

Of course he was acting as counsel. He's an attorney and he was hired by the NFL -- it is his client.

I had a Twitter conversation about this months ago with Michael McCann. I was asking McCann how independent Wells could really be given that his was hired by and working for the NFL and what he could say in his report if he found NFL wrongdoing.

McCann told me that since Wells was working for the NFL he was bound by legal ethics to advance the interests of his client -- the NFL -- and essentially would have to whitewash/omit/spin stuff that made the NFL look bad, unless his client -- the NFL -- gave him permission to be straight about that stuff in the report. He said Wells couldn't ethically directly lie but that aside had lots of freedom in how to word/omit things to make the NFL look as good as possible in the report and in fact was required to do that.

The Gr8est said:

If we are going to unseal any other NFL* actions, let's start with CameraPlacementGate.

Then let's take another look at Tripgate.

Click to expand...

Can I give this comment 100 likes, I know the Patriots don't want to dredge up old crap but I loved when BB commented on how the cameraman was in front of 60,000 people.

Rob0729 said:

You know that the NFL will claim attorney client privilege. I am not sure how the Judge would rule in this case. Technically, Wells was serving as a lawyer in his role as investigator and any communications relating to this investigation should not be protected, but that may be why they had Resnor as the lead in the appeal to make the information privileged again.

But I think this is why the NFLPA put this in their case. I think they want to put the League up against the wall and try to force them to give up communications between Pash and Wells or cave in a settlement discussion because they are afraid of what will come out.

Click to expand...

Or they could use the Wells/ Goodell tactic and ask for the emails knowing that they have no right to them yet the end result would be better, in that they could say "what is the NFL hiding? Only guilty people don't completely cooperate."

QuantumMechanic said:

Of course he was acting as counsel. He's an attorney and he was hired by the NFL -- it is his client.

I had a Twitter conversation about this months ago with Michael McCann. I was asking McCann how independent Wells could really be given that his was hired by and working for the NFL and what he could say in his report if he found NFL wrongdoing.

McCann told me that since Wells was working for the NFL he was bound by legal ethics to advance the interests of his client -- the NFL -- and essentially would have to whitewash/omit/spin stuff that made the NFL look bad, unless his client -- the NFL -- gave him permission to be straight about that stuff in the report. He said Wells couldn't ethically directly lie but that aside had lots of freedom in how to word/omit things to make the NFL look as good as possible in the report and in fact was required to do that.

Click to expand...

I don't think its that simple. If I hire an attorney to cook my dinner, or cook my books, he's not bound by legal canons because he's not working for me as a lawyer. Seems the same would be true if I hire him to act as private investigator and tail a spouse for evidence of cheating, that's not a lawyer's job even if you hire a lawyer to do it. Things get fuzzier the closer the work is to lawyering, when it gets into advising on the meaning of contract language it is acting as counsel. That is where McCann has a point, but the flip side of his point is that the investigation is fatally flawed because it is advocacy not objective fact finding.