Comments on: I’ll Pay You $1,000,000 if this Blog Post is Wrong

By: Kaimipono D. Wenger

Kaimipono D. Wenger — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:14:22 +0000

This makes sense, Dave. When someone announces, “if my opponent wins, I’ll eat my hat!”, they’re not actually promising to eat their hat, are they?

On the other hand, is there a good restitution / reliance argument here for the student?

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:37:25 +0000

Don’t make promises you don’t intend to keep.

He made a wager, witnessed by millions.
He lost the wager.
It’s time for him to pay up.

It really is as simple as that.

By: Bob Clarke

Bob Clarke — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:31:32 +0000

If I read this right, the idiot lawyer has just broken his own line of defense by “puffing” to the media.

Surely he was not acting in the best interests of his client?

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:19:32 +0000

“the amount involved (disproportionate to any gain to the offeror) …”

I think there’s fatal flaw in this step. The whole point of offering a large bounty for a task is the ability to claim that there was a huge amount of money waiting for anyone who could achieve it, but nobody could. That is, it’s not that the amount is a DIRECT gain of that amount to the offeror, but rather it’s meant to be a motivational factor to encourage people to try. And in a high-profile murder case, such an amount is very reasonable.

Maybe a million dollars is hyperbole, but that shouldn’t invalid a challenge itself.
I suggest the court should order payment to the law student at an hourly rate comparable to the expert witnesses used in the case, and treble it as the challenge reward.

By: The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk

The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:58:52 +0000

Your conclusions largely seem right to me. “The case isn’t frivolous per se” seems a fairly kind way to characterize this law student’s rather unnecessary lawsuit. That said, I think you are wrong to claim that “contractual enforcement would chill a defense lawyer’s efforts on behalf of his client.” Clients have the right to zealous representation, but does that really include a right to have one’s attorney appear on television and make what we apparently agree are hyperbolic statements? Aren’t the ethics rules enacted in most U.S. jurisdictions that discourage public statements about ongoing litigation an indication that we generally do not regard such public advocacy as being necessary to a defense? (E.g., Tex. Disc. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.07.) At any rate, the only advocacy that could be chilled if this purported contract were to be enforced would seem to be offers to pay members of the public one million dollars if they can disprove the defense’s theory. I would think that defense counsel can effectively advocate for their clients without making such offers. No?

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:24:51 +0000

The attorney shold have known better. Justice will be served by making him pay out.