Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson
- Thread starter Texansballer74
- Start date
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
Judge Harvey has a relationship with the nfl and Goddell in particular. He was over the Elliot suspension. He know what Goddell and the nfl wants and he's probably going to give majority of it. It will probably be something in the there in terms of a fine and therapy/rehab. Just my guess
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Deshaun Watson case has damaged the relationship between the NFL, NFLPA
Posted by Mike Florio on August 5, 2022, 7:55 PM EDT
In the aftermath of the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement, thing were as good as they’ve been in years between the NFL and the NFL Players Association. All good things, however, come to an end.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Deshaun Watson case has driven a major wedge between league and union. The relationship has soured, significantly, because of the NFL’s decision to appeal the ruling entered four days ago by the jointly-hired disciplinary officer under the Personal Conduct Policy, retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson.
The union shouldn’t be surprised that it’s gone this way. The 2020 CBA changed the disciplinary procedure, but it allowed the league to retain full authority over the appeal process. Did the union actually think the league would choose not to exercise the power for which it bargained?
Beyond the potential consequences of failing to be sufficiently stringent with players who violate the rights of women, the NFL generally isn’t in the practice of sacrificing its power. It’s exercising its power as a reminder that: (1) it has the power; and (2) if the union wants to change the situation, there’s a way to do it — by giving up something else in exchange for it.
Bottom line? The NFLPA let the league keep control over the appeal process. It would be foolish for the union to think the league was just going to voluntarily throw it away — especially in a case like this one.
************************
Nor do I believe the NFL gives it totally up in the next CBA..........unless the NFLPA agrees to add 6 more regular season games.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 5, 2022, 7:55 PM EDT
In the aftermath of the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement, thing were as good as they’ve been in years between the NFL and the NFL Players Association. All good things, however, come to an end.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Deshaun Watson case has driven a major wedge between league and union. The relationship has soured, significantly, because of the NFL’s decision to appeal the ruling entered four days ago by the jointly-hired disciplinary officer under the Personal Conduct Policy, retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson.
The union shouldn’t be surprised that it’s gone this way. The 2020 CBA changed the disciplinary procedure, but it allowed the league to retain full authority over the appeal process. Did the union actually think the league would choose not to exercise the power for which it bargained?
Beyond the potential consequences of failing to be sufficiently stringent with players who violate the rights of women, the NFL generally isn’t in the practice of sacrificing its power. It’s exercising its power as a reminder that: (1) it has the power; and (2) if the union wants to change the situation, there’s a way to do it — by giving up something else in exchange for it.
Bottom line? The NFLPA let the league keep control over the appeal process. It would be foolish for the union to think the league was just going to voluntarily throw it away — especially in a case like this one.
************************
Nor do I believe the NFL gives it totally up in the next CBA..........unless the NFLPA agrees to add 6 more regular season games.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Interesting take.
********************
FOX Sports RadioMoney Seems to be the Sticking Point for Deshaun Watson
ByLee DeLapp
Aug 5, 2022
*********************
So slap him with a 2 year indefinite suspension.........that will take care of both type of hurts he and the Browns would definitely feel.
********************
FOX Sports RadioMoney Seems to be the Sticking Point for Deshaun Watson
ByLee DeLapp
Aug 5, 2022
*********************
So slap him with a 2 year indefinite suspension.........that will take care of both type of hurts he and the Browns would definitely feel.
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
badboy
Hall of Fame
It says "failing to be sufficiently stringent with players who violate the rights of women...".Deshaun Watson case has damaged the relationship between the NFL, NFLPA
Posted by Mike Florio on August 5, 2022, 7:55 PM EDT
In the aftermath of the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement, thing were as good as they’ve been in years between the NFL and the NFL Players Association. All good things, however, come to an end.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Deshaun Watson case has driven a major wedge between league and union. The relationship has soured, significantly, because of the NFL’s decision to appeal the ruling entered four days ago by the jointly-hired disciplinary officer under the Personal Conduct Policy, retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson.
The union shouldn’t be surprised that it’s gone this way. The 2020 CBA changed the disciplinary procedure, but it allowed the league to retain full authority over the appeal process. Did the union actually think the league would choose not to exercise the power for which it bargained?
Beyond the potential consequences of failing to be sufficiently stringent with players who violate the rights of women, the NFL generally isn’t in the practice of sacrificing its power. It’s exercising its power as a reminder that: (1) it has the power; and (2) if the union wants to change the situation, there’s a way to do it — by giving up something else in exchange for it.
Bottom line? The NFLPA let the league keep control over the appeal process. It would be foolish for the union to think the league was just going to voluntarily throw it away — especially in a case like this one.
************************
Nor do I believe the NFL gives it totally up in the next CBA..........unless the NFLPA agrees to add 6 more regular season games.
I would think PA would be happy with those and just want NFL to " fail at being sufficiently stringent" with DW?
Mariotexan
Noob
I signed the petition. While I was filling it out I thought, how many women does it take to get the NFL to hear us?? As a woman the NFL makes us feel so insignificant, their brand and entitled players are more important. He is a sick sexual serial predator and should be handed an indefinite suspension, anything less is a joke.
badboy
Hall of Fame
I agree with your point of view but where were all the female organizations stepping up to the plate? I believe I'm correct in saying the one known as National Organization of Women had no comment until very recently. Perhaps you could give us your thoughts on that? Thanks!
The post you quoted was more a sarcastic response to that tweet it was "editing for clarity"
But yes, what I've heard is that the league would prefer an indefinite suspension and that it could be "significantly more than one year"
It's said that there was discussion of a suspension that would last the duration of the contract he signed with the Browns.
It also appears that the Browns have a way out of that contract .... when you read the Robinson report, it's clear he wasn't truthful / forthcoming with the investigation and that could void the entire deal.
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
We still get to keep the draft picks right?
Yes.
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
Damn.. for once Houston might come out smelling like a rose.
Remember when some posters were upset when the draft details were released and thought the file clerk should've held on to him in hopes we could get more picks/players? Bottom literally fell out weeks after the trade.
I thought the Hopkins trade was one of the most lopsided ever, thanks Deshaun. Now I just need a QB to get sacked 77 times and for someone to surpass the Oiler meltdown
(although given the stage I do feel like the Falcons meltdown was much worse.)
Max
Veteran
I'm guessing that the league has considered that these women need to get paid as well. Too heavy handed and they've taken away their payday. Indefinite seems as stiff as the penalty would get. Then they can play it by ear.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
REPORT: There’s One Team The NFL Doesn’t Want Deshaun Watson To Face In 2022
August 5, 2022by Darrelle Lincoln
BEREA, OH – JUNE 01: Deshaun Watson #4 of the Cleveland Browns looks on during the Cleveland Browns offseason workout at CrossCountry Mortgage Campus on June 1, 2022 in Berea, Ohio. (Photo by Nick Cammett/Getty Images)
The news we’ve all been waiting for finally dropped early Monday morning. Judge Sue Robinson announced her ruling on Deshaun Watson that he will miss the first six games of the 2022 NFL season. However, Riger Goodell and the NFL filed an appeal and it looks like that suspension will get bigger.
It has been known that the NFL has wanted at least a year suspension since the discipline hearing started. We also found out the two sides tried to settle before Robinson’s decision, but Watson’s camp declined.
During that settlement talk, the NFL wanted a 12-game suspension and a huge fine. There’s a reason they wanted 12 games.
According to multiple reports, the reason the NFL wants Watson out for at least 12 games is that they don’t want him playing in Houston this year.
NFL insiders Albert Breer and Charles Robinson are both reporting this tidbit.
“This is correct from @AlbertBreer,” Robinson tweeted. “I have also heard from sources that the #NFL and Roger Goodell specifically doesn’t want Watson playing in the Houston game in week 13. Which lines up with the league previously circling a 12 game suspension in (very limited) settlement talks.”
As of right now, Watson’s first game will be on October 23 against Baltimore.
If Watson receives a 12-game suspension, he can’t return until Week 14 against the Cincinnati Bengals.
powerfuldragon
Enchilada Aficionado.
This whole thing is such a vortex of toxicity and pure evil. This isn't something I need to keep up with anymore, I'm sick of hearing about it and I need to focus on raising a daughter who can hopefully fold creeps like this into little pervert pretzels by the time she's 21. Jiu Jitsu classes usually start at 5 years of age, right?
badboy
Hall of Fame
Do not forget that the Texans have already paid 30 of them significantly. They should do just fine until the money from Watson kicks in. I am not counting out the NFL as a future Target of lawsuits. As the women were not in it for a cash grab they should be more willing to see Watson punished severely than to grab more money from him.
badboy
Hall of Fame
Yes many at 5 years old begin martial arts and self-defense training. However training our children to not allow others to put us into potentially dangerous situation to earn money can start much younger.
badboy
Hall of Fame
The lesson should be to use logic and Common Sense not to put oneself into dangerous situations regardless of the location. The old I can do whatever I want whenever I want and wherever I want sometimes bumps up against other people's wants. We in the US of A frequently forget that.
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
NFLPA floats notion of Deshaun Watson playing Week One, but it remains highly unlikely
Mike Florio
Sat, August 6, 2022 at 10:49 AM·6 min read
As the NFL’s appeal, to the NFL, of the six-game suspension imposed on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson heads toward an “expedited” (by rule) resolution, the NFL Players Association seems to be trying to create any leverage that it can for a settlement. This effort includes floating the notion to some in the media that Watson could actually play in Week One against the Panthers, if/when a federal lawsuit is filed — and if/when a federal judge finds that Watson should be permitted to play while the litigation proceeds.
It’s a weak and flimsy argument, and it most likely will not prevail in court. It also won’t do much if anything to persuade the NFL that it should cut a deal with the union now, because the NFL surely realizes the flaws in this approach.
The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.
There are several serious problems with this contention. First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.
Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.
Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.
The argument that the prior discipline disappears on appeal could lead to very strange results. Let’s say the union had appealed and the league hadn’t. Does anyone think that, on appeal, the final ruling could have been an increase in the punishment beyond six games? In this case, does anyone think that the NFL’s appeal could result in something less than six games — especially when the NFL specifically appealed for an increase?
Fourth, Judge Robinson’s factual findings are binding on the appeal process. She found that Watson did what he was accused of doing, that he committed “non-violent sexual assault” as to four massage therapists, resulting in three different violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In past cases involving a suspension that was delayed by the presiding judge pending the outcome of litigation (e.g., Tom Brady, Ezekiel Elliott), the NFLPA challenged the conclusion that the player had done anything wrong. Here, the CBA makes the findings of fact from Judge Robinson fully binding on the appeal process. The union at this point can’t deny that Watson violated the policy. The only question is whether the punishment will remain at six games or become more than six games.
The NFLPA seems to believe the overall circumstances have changed, now that the process includes an independent disciplinary officer who holds the hearing, makes factual determinations, and issues punishment. But the union agreed to allow the Commissioner or his designee to continue to control the appeal. The past fights had played out in court before the union agreed to a procedure that says the decision of the Commissioner or his designee “will be final and binding on all parties.” The union’s negotiators agreed to this language, and the rank and file voted to accept a new labor deal that included it. It will be much harder to challenge all outcomes of this process in court, moving forward.
That leads to the fifth point. A preliminary injunction, which keeps (for example) the NFL from implementing a suspension until the lawsuit has been resolved, is an extraordinary remedy. It’s a high bar. The analysis considers multiple factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits of the case. The new CBA makes it far less likely that the NFLPA will prevail on Watson’s behalf.
Another factor to consider in issuing a preliminary injunction is whether the harm suffered by the player is “irreparable.” With Watson’s six-game suspension a foregone conclusion, he suffers no harm by not playing in the first six games of the season.
Finally, it’s important to remember that the league has managed to secure (via the Tom Brady case) very favorable legal precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which encompasses the federal courts in New York.
The league, knowing full well that litigation is coming, needs to be ready to file a declaratory judgment action in a New York federal court, seeking confirmation that the handling of the internal procedure was proper. In what would be a potential race to the courthouse, the NFL will know when to file its case, because the NFL will know when Peter Harvey issues his ruling. All the league needs to do is send the text to whoever is ready to file the case, and off it goes.
Will the NFLPA pull out any and all stops to fight the league. if/when Watson receives a much longer suspension? The fact that the union is floating the idea that Watson could play in Week One suggests that there will be multiple aggressive efforts undertaken. However, aggressive and successful are two very different things. In the Brady and Elliott cases, the NFLPA ultimately was not successful. The 2020 CBA makes the Deshaun Watson fight harder, not easier, for the union and the player.
Mike Florio
Sat, August 6, 2022 at 10:49 AM·6 min read
As the NFL’s appeal, to the NFL, of the six-game suspension imposed on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson heads toward an “expedited” (by rule) resolution, the NFL Players Association seems to be trying to create any leverage that it can for a settlement. This effort includes floating the notion to some in the media that Watson could actually play in Week One against the Panthers, if/when a federal lawsuit is filed — and if/when a federal judge finds that Watson should be permitted to play while the litigation proceeds.
It’s a weak and flimsy argument, and it most likely will not prevail in court. It also won’t do much if anything to persuade the NFL that it should cut a deal with the union now, because the NFL surely realizes the flaws in this approach.
The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.
There are several serious problems with this contention. First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.
Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.
Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.
The argument that the prior discipline disappears on appeal could lead to very strange results. Let’s say the union had appealed and the league hadn’t. Does anyone think that, on appeal, the final ruling could have been an increase in the punishment beyond six games? In this case, does anyone think that the NFL’s appeal could result in something less than six games — especially when the NFL specifically appealed for an increase?
Fourth, Judge Robinson’s factual findings are binding on the appeal process. She found that Watson did what he was accused of doing, that he committed “non-violent sexual assault” as to four massage therapists, resulting in three different violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In past cases involving a suspension that was delayed by the presiding judge pending the outcome of litigation (e.g., Tom Brady, Ezekiel Elliott), the NFLPA challenged the conclusion that the player had done anything wrong. Here, the CBA makes the findings of fact from Judge Robinson fully binding on the appeal process. The union at this point can’t deny that Watson violated the policy. The only question is whether the punishment will remain at six games or become more than six games.
The NFLPA seems to believe the overall circumstances have changed, now that the process includes an independent disciplinary officer who holds the hearing, makes factual determinations, and issues punishment. But the union agreed to allow the Commissioner or his designee to continue to control the appeal. The past fights had played out in court before the union agreed to a procedure that says the decision of the Commissioner or his designee “will be final and binding on all parties.” The union’s negotiators agreed to this language, and the rank and file voted to accept a new labor deal that included it. It will be much harder to challenge all outcomes of this process in court, moving forward.
That leads to the fifth point. A preliminary injunction, which keeps (for example) the NFL from implementing a suspension until the lawsuit has been resolved, is an extraordinary remedy. It’s a high bar. The analysis considers multiple factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits of the case. The new CBA makes it far less likely that the NFLPA will prevail on Watson’s behalf.
Another factor to consider in issuing a preliminary injunction is whether the harm suffered by the player is “irreparable.” With Watson’s six-game suspension a foregone conclusion, he suffers no harm by not playing in the first six games of the season.
Finally, it’s important to remember that the league has managed to secure (via the Tom Brady case) very favorable legal precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which encompasses the federal courts in New York.
The league, knowing full well that litigation is coming, needs to be ready to file a declaratory judgment action in a New York federal court, seeking confirmation that the handling of the internal procedure was proper. In what would be a potential race to the courthouse, the NFL will know when to file its case, because the NFL will know when Peter Harvey issues his ruling. All the league needs to do is send the text to whoever is ready to file the case, and off it goes.
Will the NFLPA pull out any and all stops to fight the league. if/when Watson receives a much longer suspension? The fact that the union is floating the idea that Watson could play in Week One suggests that there will be multiple aggressive efforts undertaken. However, aggressive and successful are two very different things. In the Brady and Elliott cases, the NFLPA ultimately was not successful. The 2020 CBA makes the Deshaun Watson fight harder, not easier, for the union and the player.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
..........................
Deshaun Watson and the NFLPA have accepted a six-game suspension, so you really think a Judge is gonna sit there and listen to the lawyers say that Watson would be harmed by a 10 game or 12 game or even 16 game suspension after they were totally fine with a six game one? Watson stands to lose more if court delays push this case into year two of his contract and he’s suspended when set to make 46 million dollars. So there is no financial harm, or even intangible harm here to him that would ever merit the grant of an injunction.
Next, Watson has to prove a “likelihood of success on the merits” of his case, to get an injunction. In other words, that he’s likely to win. Watson’s chances of winning a case trying to overturn an arbitration award that he and his team just praised as “full,” “fair”, thorough and “impartial,” is zero. Another no go. Plus a long line of cases (Brady, Elliott, etc.) set a precedent that would instruct a Judge to kick this guy’s case out of court. This just happened last year to Dallas Cowboys’ offensive lineman La’el Collins, who ran to get an injunction to stop his suspension from taking place and was quickly denied and sent on his way.
Again, courts don’t want to get involved. For that reason, grounds to challenge awards are very limited. Brady and Elliott both tried and it failed. That was with a CBA process that was fraught with unfairness. If it failed then, it will certainly fail now when the NFL and NFLPA have just given this brand new process their blessing.
Some wonder, well, will Watson be able to play week one, while the appeal is pending? Likely not. An appeal hearing must happen within ten days of the notice of appeal, which was two days ago. Therefore, by the 13th of August the Hearing will happen and that still gives more than two weeks for there to be a final decision. The CBA requires that the decision be issued expeditiously after the hearing so there should not be a long delay.
The bottom line is: Watson is out for the first six weeks and looking at possibly a longer suspension if the appellate guy doesn’t uphold the six. Keep in mind, Judge Sue Robinson found twelve violations of the personal conduct policy, which leaves plenty of room for a lengthening of the suspension. With findings from Robinson that the NFL proved that Watson more likely than not sexually assaulted four women, an indefinite, year-long suspension is certainly within the realm of reason.
The personal conduct policy places no limits on suspensions and gives broad discretion to how long the NFL can discipline someone for. It even says that second offenses of sexual assault with physical force warrant banishment from the league. The NFL can set its punishments at whatever it wants and a court has no interest in the substance of the punishment. It doesn’t care about the fairness of the outcome. When it comes to meddling in CBA arbitrations, Courts only care about the fairness of the process in getting to the decision, not the details of the decision itself. Watson will have to live with the final appeals decision, no matter the outcome. The rest is just fake legal news.
Max
Veteran
Out of curiosity, how do you know this?
Max
Veteran
I've seen estimates that his settlements could be as high as 55MM. He's only been paid 9MM of his signing bonus from the Cleveland contract. I responded to Corrosion's comment about Cleveland getting out of the contract. There's language in the contract about these lawsuits, so if they have found a way around that, the bonus money is at risk of being clawed back as well. Add to all of this an additional fine from the NFL. You can't pay if you don't have the money. There's just as much reason to guess that they haven't been paid as guessing that they have.
Clemson trash doing their thing.Damn.. for once Houston might come out smelling like a rose.
Remember when some posters were upset when the draft details were released and thought the file clerk should've held on to him in hopes we could get more picks/players? Bottom literally fell out weeks after the trade.
I thought the Hopkins trade was one of the most lopsided ever, thanks Deshaun. Now I just need a QB to get sacked 77 times and for someone to surpass the Oiler meltdown
TexansBull
Hall of Fame
Max
Veteran
People don't pay judgements or money they owe all the time even when they have the money (Lefty's). It's not like you sign the settlement paperwork and wire the money over that afternoon. There's also a strong possibility that his Cleveland income was considered when arriving at a settlement #. 55MM is a big number until you compare it to his contract. And if that is the case, they'd structure the payments over time as Watson gets paid. Yes, it's a bunch of guesses. So is guessing that they've been paid.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Watson can thank Mulagheta, not only for his 5-year $230 million dollar fully guaranteed contract, but also for a fully guaranteed lifetime of damaged reputation.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Refusal to negotiate settlement of first civil claim ended up costing Deshaun Watson plenty
Posted by Mike Florio on August 7, 2022, 9:32 AM EDT
At some point before March of 2021, Houston attorney Tony Buzbee contacted the representatives of then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson regarding a civil claim against Watson. It is common if not routine for lawyers to attempt to settle claims before filing them in court. In this case, however, Watson’s camp flatly refused to even talk.
In hindsight, that was the first — and arguably biggest — mistake made on Watson’s behalf. Buzbee made an opening demand of $100,000. That usually signals a willingness to settle in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. And if Watson had simply settled that first claim, there may have never been a second one.
Watson’s representatives instead refused to make even a nuisance-level opening offer, in the range of $5,000 or $10,000, to keep the discussions moving. At one point, they asked for more information about the claim from Buzbee, and they essentially asked him to make a new (and lower) offer.
“I can tell you at that point I was pissed,” Buzbee said Thursday in a press conference. “The U.S. Marine in me would not be denied at that point. We had no other option but to file suit.”
That’s a cardinal sin, as negotiations go. Lawyers never should be asked to bid against their own offer. There’s a ritual, an etiquette. If one side wants the other side to make a new offer, that side needs to make an offer of its own.
THE REST OF THE STORY
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Refusal to negotiate settlement of first civil claim ended up costing Deshaun Watson plenty
Posted by Mike Florio on August 7, 2022, 9:32 AM EDT
At some point before March of 2021, Houston attorney Tony Buzbee contacted the representatives of then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson regarding a civil claim against Watson. It is common if not routine for lawyers to attempt to settle claims before filing them in court. In this case, however, Watson’s camp flatly refused to even talk.
In hindsight, that was the first — and arguably biggest — mistake made on Watson’s behalf. Buzbee made an opening demand of $100,000. That usually signals a willingness to settle in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. And if Watson had simply settled that first claim, there may have never been a second one.
Watson’s representatives instead refused to make even a nuisance-level opening offer, in the range of $5,000 or $10,000, to keep the discussions moving. At one point, they asked for more information about the claim from Buzbee, and they essentially asked him to make a new (and lower) offer.
“I can tell you at that point I was pissed,” Buzbee said Thursday in a press conference. “The U.S. Marine in me would not be denied at that point. We had no other option but to file suit.”
That’s a cardinal sin, as negotiations go. Lawyers never should be asked to bid against their own offer. There’s a ritual, an etiquette. If one side wants the other side to make a new offer, that side needs to make an offer of its own.
THE REST OF THE STORY
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
People can say or call whatever names about the guy, but he's damn good at his job. Watson shouldn't of screwed around with a dick who pisses off his own neighbors by driving a tank up and down the street.
(NSFW)
In this situation, truer words have never been spoken
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
An attorney that does not forsee an obvious impending potential catastrophe and/or cannot control his client in such an extremely risky refusal to settle for "pennies" to his millionaire client, cannot be considered "damn good at his job" IMHO.People can say or call whatever names about the guy, but he's damn good at his job. Watson shouldn't of screwed around with a dick who pisses off his own neighbors by driving a tank up and down the road.
(NSFW)
In this situation, truer words have never been spoken
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
It is important to understand that Peter Harvey helped develop the current version of the Personal Conduct Policy, adopted in the aftermath of the Ray Rice debacle.
I believe @Carr Bombed was referring to Buzbee.An attorney that does not forsee an obvious impending potential catastrophe and/or cannot control his client in such an extremely risky refusal to settle for "pennies" to his millionaire client, cannot be considered "damn good at his job" IMHO.