Comments on: Buying Silence http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/can_silence_be.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:33:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Q http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/can_silence_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-49400 Q Wed, 07 May 2008 12:08:50 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/05/buying-silence.html#comment-49400 There's a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the "non-disparagement" clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the "non-disparagement" that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate. Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak's article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can't think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim's immortal soul hostage to induce settlement. There’s a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the “non-disparagement” clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the “non-disparagement” that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate.

Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak’s article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can’t think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim’s immortal soul hostage to induce settlement.

]]> By: Q http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/can_silence_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-49399 Q Wed, 07 May 2008 12:07:54 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/05/buying-silence.html#comment-49399 There's a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the "non-disparagement" clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the "non-disparagement" that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate. Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak's article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can't think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim's immortal soul hostage to induce settlement. There’s a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the “non-disparagement” clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the “non-disparagement” that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate.

Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak’s article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can’t think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim’s immortal soul hostage to induce settlement.

]]> By: Q http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/can_silence_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-49398 Q Wed, 07 May 2008 12:07:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/05/buying-silence.html#comment-49398 There's a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the "non-disparagement" clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the "non-disparagement" that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate. Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak's article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can't think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim's immortal soul hostage to induce settlement. There’s a difference between the standard non-disclosure clause in private settlements, and with the “non-disparagement” clause that Paul Hastings wanted. Non-disclosure should be enforceable between parties of relatively equal bargaining power especially where there is the potential for economic loss (as in trade secrets) or injury to innocent parties (as in child custody). However, the “non-disparagement” that Paul Hastings wanted seems to go much further than non-disclosure and seems patently unfair given the unequal bargaining power between the firm and the associate.

Same with the clergy sex scandals in Liptak’s article. Putting aside policy considerations about preventing sex abuse, I can’t think of a more unequal bargaining disparity when the church can literally holds a victim’s immortal soul hostage to induce settlement.

]]>