UofL Foundation Lawyered Up

[Sec221]

Appears that UofL Foundation is going on the offensive:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/30219008/uofl-foundation-hires-firm-to-review-escort-allegations

This law firm is a heavy hitter. They have the staff and resources to get to the bottom of this. For this to come about translates into they have come to the realization that something is amiss. They'll research for credibility and plausibility then report to the Foundation.

We'll start seeing more leaks and what have you not to draw attention the embellishments instead of the actual facts of what took place.

 

[BPGhost]

I think that in the end - anyone with something to lose is going to obtain counsel. The "escort queen" spent the better part of the week meeting with lawyers - including one in Scott Cox's office association. It seems pretty clear that many of the allegations are true and UofL is going to have to do their best to mitigate the damage. The best way to do so is to simply stop talking - not "no comment" - no returning of phone calls or answering questions shouted at you by reporters. Anyone smart realizes giving the subject any oxygen just keeps it on the front page.

I'm sure he's been told but hopefully RP gets that message thru his head and gets back to strictly basketball.

 

[PHCARD]

Because it's Tom's athletic program!!!!!!!!!! Pretty simple. Man the way people read doom and gloom into every little thing is unbelievable. Ramsey is not going to mention any names until he knows exactly what was going on. Ramsey is a smart president. He doesn't run his mouth about stuff he doesn't know the facts on. I can understand why Rick was upset that Ramsey didn't mention him in press release. But the man in charge with Ramsey has always been Tom.

 

[Sec221]

I think that in the end - anyone with something to lose is going to obtain counsel. The "escort queen" spent the better part of the week meeting with lawyers - including one in Scott Cox's office association. It seems pretty clear that many of the allegations are true and UofL is going to have to do their best to mitigate the damage. The best way to do so is to simply stop talking - not "no comment" - no returning of phone calls or answering questions shouted at you by reporters. Anyone smart realizes giving the subject any oxygen just keeps it on the front page.

I'm sure he's been told but hopefully RP gets that message thru his head and gets back to strictly basketball.

Do you have any proof?

They would not allow his Attorney, Mr. Cox to present during the Smrt, UofL, & NCCA interview. I highly doubt, no I would say that would NOT allow Mr. Cox to conduct an interview/take deposition without a lawsuit being filed.

He has a lawyer now. (Editor's note: McGee's attorney, Scott Cox, emphatically denied the allegations in Powell and Cady's book. Read.)
His lawyer wanted to come to the meeting (with Smrt).

And that was not --
They didn't want him there. We didn't want him there.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...coauthor-of-breaking-cardinal-rules/73440524/

This is way past a "NCAA" thing.

 

[rockycard]

It's funny how these obsessed blue bellies know more about our program than our insiders do. Can you say NO LIFE LOSERS?

 

[PHCARD]

I don't know why BB can't take their trash and thoughts over to their board where they are completely obsessed with talking trash about UL and the latest news(gossip). They will love your expert opinions over there. Are there a few good BB who honestly care about our situation? Sure but they are so few and far between. It's really sad case of hate mongers.

 

[thornie1]

By Rick Pitino's own admission he was told to stay out of it. He was mentioned to having carnal knowledge by people involved with the allegations and therefor could interfere or cause an integrity issue with the results of the investigations taking place.

You have two investigations taking place, a NCAA one and a legal one.

The AD would be the only one who could talk to the recruits about the situation.

Sec are you saying that if recruits are on a visit next week and ask Pitino about the allegations he has to excuse himself and go get the AD?

 

[Sec221]

Sec are you saying that if recruits are on a visit next week and ask Pitino about the allegations he has to excuse himself and go get the AD?

That would depend upon what Smrt has advised him to do at this time. IMO he would have script for that type of thing.

 

[KerryRhodes]

It's funny how these obsessed blue bellies know more about our program than our insiders do. Can you say NO LIFE LOSERS?

Its just a distraction to the pay for players, theyve got going on. The latest being Labissiere.

 

[thornie1]

That would depend upon what Smrt has advised him to do at this time. IMO he would have script for that type of thing.

OK....

 

[BPGhost]

Do you have any proof?

They would not allow his Attorney, Mr. Cox to present during the Smrt, UofL, & NCCA interview. I highly doubt, no I would say that would NOT allow Mr. Cox to conduct an interview/take deposition without a lawsuit being filed.

He has a lawyer now. (Editor's note: McGee's attorney, Scott Cox, emphatically denied the allegations in Powell and Cady's book. Read.)
His lawyer wanted to come to the meeting (with Smrt).

And that was not --
They didn't want him there. We didn't want him there.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...coauthor-of-breaking-cardinal-rules/73440524/

This is way past a "NCAA" thing.

Umm, I know the attorney in Cox's office that she spoke and, I know Scott Cox. Cox has not attempted to interview / depose anyone, as McGee's atty, of course he'd want to be privy to those conversations. In fact he is the one being inundated with requests from everyone from Outside the Lines to Good Morning America. I doubt you'll hear anything more from him as he realizes that no good can come from saying anything at this point. In fact (as he is friends with RP and assisted him in the Sypher deal) he is one of the people trying to get RP to simply stop talking.

Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do.

 

[Sec221]

Umm, I know the attorney in Cox's office that she spoke and, I know Scott Cox. Cox has not attempted to interview / depose anyone, as McGee's atty, of course he'd want to be privy to those conversations. In fact he is the one being inundated with requests from everyone from Outside the Lines to Good Morning America. I doubt you'll hear anything more from him as he realizes that no good can come from saying anything at this point. In fact (as he is friends with RP and assisted him in the Sypher deal) he is one of the people trying to get RP to simply stop talking.

Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do.

You lost me?

Also, there is no way Mr. Cox or anyone in his office would have told you anything about this case given the sensitivity of the information. The possibility of breaching Attorney Client Privilege by discussing any facts or matters regarding this case without written consent from the client (McGee) could have intentional and unintentional consequences. I have seen and signed such agreements while providing services for attorney's clients.

Doing so without such an agreement could result in disbarment of the attorneys involved.

He was upset about the NCAA Investigation leak. How do you think he would respond to your post if he saw it?

Back to the point I was making:

I referenced the interview with Cady and how they did not want Cox anywhere near them while this was going on.

What I said was about the only way Cox would be able to interview anyone on the other side at this time would be by filing a lawsuit to take depositions for discovery. They know he is trouble for them and their book. They are not required, nor or they obligated to do so either.

I never said that Cox attempted to interview or depose anyone other noting that his request to be present while Smrt was meeting w/Cady as per the quoted article was denied.

As a matter fact, if you read some of my post, you'll find that I said that Cox would not let McGee anywhere near a mic nor would he say anything as to let the other side paint themselves into a corner.

Also, Cox was upset and let it be known about the NCAA leak about Lyle for obvious reasons. I read and heard that.

We won't hear from McGee's/UofL's side until all of the investigations are completed.

I wouldn't be surprised if McGee's side and UofL's side collaborate findings in the information at some point. Both are on the same side of the issue.

As for Rick Pitino, he feels helpless given that he was asked to stay out of it. You can tell that in his tone in the Meiner's interview. He did not really help himself or anyone else for that matter given what he said or how he said it.

 

[Dore95]

Are you responding to me or the previous poster?

I referenced the interview with Cady and how they did not want Cox anywhere near them while this was going on.

What I said was about the only way Cox would be able to interview anyone on the other side at this time would be by filing a lawsuit to take depositions for discovery. They know he is trouble for them and their book.

I never said that Cox attempted to interview or depose anyone other noting that his request to be present while Smrt was meeting w/Cady as per the quoted article was denied.

As a matter fact, if you read some of my post, you'll find that I said that Cox would not let McGee anywhere near a mic nor would he say anything as to let the other side paint themselves into a corner.

Also, Cox was upset and let it be known about the NCAA leak about Lyle for obvious reasons. I read and heard that.

We won't hear from McGee's/UofL's side until all of the investigations are completed.

I wouldn't be surprised if McGee's side and UofL's side collaborate findings in the information at some point. Both are on the same side of the issue.

As for Rick Pitino, he feels helpless given that he was asked to stay out of it. You can tell that in his tone in the Meiner's interview. He did not help himself or anyone else for that matter given what he said or more important how he said it.

It seems pretty clear in your posts on this topic here and on TOS that you don't know anything about how the legal system works. Not sure why you are talking about depos or discovery.

 

[BPGhost]

You lost me?

Also, there is no way Mr. Cox or anyone in his office would have told you anything about this case given the sensitivity of the information. The possibility of breaching Attorney Client Privilege by discussing any facts or matters regarding this case without written consent from the client (McGee) could have intentional and unintentional consequences. I have seen and signed such agreements while providing services for attorney's clients.

Doing so without such an agreement could result in disbarment of the attorneys involved.

He was upset about the NCAA Investigation leak. How do you think he would respond to your post if he saw it?

Back to the point I was making:

I referenced the interview with Cady and how they did not want Cox anywhere near them while this was going on.

What I said was about the only way Cox would be able to interview anyone on the other side at this time would be by filing a lawsuit to take depositions for discovery. They know he is trouble for them and their book. They are not required, nor or they obligated to do so either.

I never said that Cox attempted to interview or depose anyone other noting that his request to be present while Smrt was meeting w/Cady as per the quoted article was denied.

As a matter fact, if you read some of my post, you'll find that I said that Cox would not let McGee anywhere near a mic nor would he say anything as to let the other side paint themselves into a corner.

Also, Cox was upset and let it be known about the NCAA leak about Lyle for obvious reasons. I read and heard that.

We won't hear from McGee's/UofL's side until all of the investigations are completed.

I wouldn't be surprised if McGee's side and UofL's side collaborate findings in the information at some point. Both are on the same side of the issue.

As for Rick Pitino, he feels helpless given that he was asked to stay out of it. You can tell that in his tone in the Meiner's interview. He did not really help himself or anyone else for that matter given what he said or how he said it.

What attorney-client privilege was breached with what I was told or, posted? The fact that Cox is being bombarded with interview requests? That the woman in question is meeting with attorneys? That he has given RP the advice to stop talking to the press? You really don't understand the legal system at all apparently.

"Stop talking" seems to be advice you should adhere to as well.

 

[Sec221]

It seems pretty clear in your posts on this topic here and on TOS that you don't know anything about how the legal system works. Not sure why you are talking about depos or discovery.

????

What I wrote has to do with the part after you file suit. It's called discovery. The part where you take depositions and subpoena docs and what have you not. Then you compile your information to see if you go forward or not.

The people behind this book are not just going to invite everyone in and say take a look and make all the copies you need. If you need to talk, just give us a call and we will be glad to meet with you.

Cady already stated that Cox was not welcomed to sit in on Smrt and the NCAA's interview.

It appears at this point that where this thing is headed given that UofL has hired Stites & Harbison.

 

[Sec221]

What attorney-client privilege was breached with what I was told or, posted? The fact that Cox is being bombarded with interview requests? That the woman in question is meeting with attorneys? That he has given RP the advice to stop talking to the press? You really don't understand the legal system at all apparently.

"Stop talking" seems to be advice you should adhere to as well.

You just posted that someone from his office told you of a meeting with Powell. I don't suppose you have McGee's permission to post such things on Louisville Rivals' message board?

You can't just tell anything regards to an ongoing investigation when someone has a confidentiality contract in place. If I had any idea of your relationship with members of that law firm, I would of have stopped you.

You could get your friend in some serious trouble by posting any information. It's ALL confidential until they release it.

 

[Dore95]

????

What I wrote has to do with the part after you file suit. It's called discovery. The part where you take depositions and subpoena docs and what have you not. Then you compile your information to see if you go forward or not.

The people behind this book are not just going to invite everyone in and say take a look and make all the copies you need. If you need to talk, just give us a call and we will be glad to meet with you.

Cady already stated that Cox was not welcomed to sit in on Smrt and the NCAA's interview.

It appears at this point that where this thing is headed given that UofL has hired Stites & Harbison.

Discovery is something you do to support a cause do action already filed, not to find out if you want to go forward with a lawsuit. You have it backwards. You can't file a case for the purpose of taking a depo. It is very likely that U of L Foundation hired Stites to investigate and provide advice, not to sue someone.

 

[Sec221]

Discovery is something you do to support a cause do action already filed, not to find out if you want to go forward with a lawsuit. You have it backwards. You can't file a case for the purpose of taking a depo. It is very likely that U of L Foundation hired Stites to investigate and provide advice, not to sue someone.

My first sentence: What I wrote has to do with the part after you file suit. (I think it's headed that way as time goes on based on the available public info at this time. Eventually obtaining information will become almost impossible to obtain due to the negative impact on the book and parties involved.)

The next step would be to assimilate your data to continue, mediate (settle out), or drop the case entirely.

I thought the same thing too in regards to Stites as you did at first.

However, after looking through the allegations, interviews, rebuttals, and my own personal experience with some of the inter workings at UofL, I have a feeling they have stumbled upon something during the NCAA investigation.

Also, the basketball program is very important element to the University. You can't just allow it to be abused in such a manner if all of the book is not true and accurate.

The National Enquirer writes some of the most libelous articles based in partial truth along with a ton of embellishment. They are sued and often loose and/or settle out and keep on going. It's a business model.

I think the publisher of this book has taken the same approach. Also, if there is any truth in regards to his feelings towards Pitino, he will have accomplished what he intended to do.

 

[Dore95]

My first sentence: What I wrote has to do with the part after you file suit. (I think it's headed that way as time goes on based on the available public info at this time. Eventually obtaining information will become almost impossible to obtain due to the negative impact on the book and parties involved.)

The next step would be to assimilate your data to continue, mediate (settle out), or drop the case entirely.

I thought the same thing too in regards to Stites as you did at first.

However, after looking through the allegations, interviews, rebuttals, and my own personal experience with some of the inter workings at UofL, I have a feeling they have stumbled upon something during the NCAA investigation.

Also, the basketball program is very important element to the University. You can't just allow it to be abused in such a manner if all of the book is not true and accurate.

The National Enquirer writes some of the most libelous articles based in partial truth along with a ton of embellishment. They are sued and often loose and/or settle out and keep on going. It's a business model.

I think the publisher of this book has taken the same approach. Also, if there is any truth in regards to his feelings towards Pitino, he will have accomplished what he intended to do.

U of L is not going to file a defamation lawsuit. Do you really think we want Chane and T Will and others deposed about what went on after hours in the dorm?

 

[Sec221]

U of L is not going to file a defamation lawsuit. Do you really think we want Chane and T Will and others deposed about what went on after hours in the dorm?

At first, I told a friend that they would not do anything to his surprise. However, if nothing much comes from the NCAA investigation, I have feeling they will go after them. This was the basis of the attack, how we follow the rules. Powell even said that's where she went.

I know, the idea of Chane, Twill, and all of the others who have spent time here does sound a little scary to have them be deposed and/or testify.

Can you imagine what the stories would be. But they might not be a violation of NCAA rules. That would be the litmus test. Personal opinion would be just that.

But that's why you hire a law firm like Stites & Harbinson.

 

[BPGhost]

You just posted that someone from his office told you of a meeting with Powell. I don't suppose you have McGee's permission to post such things on Louisville Rivals' message board?

You can't just tell anything regards to an ongoing investigation when someone has a confidentiality contract in place. If I had any idea of your relationship with members of that law firm, I would of have stopped you.

You could get your friend in some serious trouble by posting any information. It's ALL confidential until they release it.

Explain to me how one would need to obtain McGee's permission to share the information that Powell met with an attorney? I can only assume when you reference some "confidentiality contract" being in place - you really mean attorney-client privilege - which covers McGee's communications with his attorneys but does not extend to others actions.

Posting that she met with an attorney or saying that RP has been advised by smart people - some who have represented him in the past but do not in this current situation and some that aren't attorneys - to stop talking, is not "confidential" information.

You're out of your depth here and are simply doubling down on making yourself look foolish.

 

[Sec221]

Explain to me how one would need to obtain McGee's permission to share the information that Powell met with an attorney? I can only assume when you reference some "confidentiality contract" being in place - you really mean attorney-client privilege - which covers McGee's communications with his attorneys but does not extend to others actions.

Posting that she met with an attorney or saying that RP has been advised by smart people - some who have represented him in the past but do not in this current situation and some that aren't attorneys - to stop talking, is not "confidential" information.

You're out of your depth here and are simply doubling down on making yourself look foolish.

When you hire an attorney to represent you, you enter into a contract. Attorney-Client relationship is a fiduciary relationship between client and attorney that is protected by law and is spelled out in the services agreement contract. It covers how information will be shared outside the attorney-client domain.

ALL INFORMATION is confidential unless the parties involved agree otherwise. Doesn't matter what, when, where, how, or whatever, it's all confidential.

I had a friend that lost his attorney for talking to someone about his situation. He found out by mail that his attorney would no longer be able to work with him due to him discussing what he consider trivial elements of his case without the consent of his attorney.

These are bilateral contracts, not unilateral contracts. Like I posted it earlier, attorneys can be disbarred for sharing information without prior consent from their client

The attorneys in all cases that I know of direct their clients as to who, if anyone, to discuss the case with (my friend who did not listen). The attorney will inform the client every step of what their communication will be and to whom it will be with as to not breach the agreement.

Your friend told you something that you should have kept to yourself. If you don't believe me, ask her to put in writing that it is OK for you to post on the Louisville Rivals message board steps they have/are taking to represent McGee. Don't forget to mention your opinion of it based on your impression of the contact.

Not the ones Mr. Cox shared in the press conference either. I seriously doubt they would want you doing that either given your relationship with the attorneys involved.

I will guarantee she will not do it.

 

[BPGhost]

When you hire an attorney to represent you, you enter into a contract. Attorney-Client relationship is a fiduciary relationship between client and attorney that is protected by law and is spelled out in the services agreement contract. It covers how information will be shared outside the attorney-client domain.

ALL INFORMATION is confidential unless the parties involved agree otherwise. Doesn't matter what, when, where, how, or whatever, it's all confidential.

I had a friend that lost his attorney for talking to someone about his situation. He found out by mail that his attorney would no longer be able to work with him due to him discussing what he consider trivial elements of his case without the consent of his attorney.

These are bilateral contracts, not unilateral contracts. Like I posted it earlier, attorneys can be disbarred for sharing information without prior consent from their client

The attorneys in all cases that I know of direct their clients as to who, if anyone, to discuss the case with (my friend who did not listen). The attorney will inform the client every step of what their communication will be and to whom it will be with as to not breach the agreement.

Your friend told you something that you should have kept to yourself. If you don't believe me, ask her to put in writing that it is OK for you to post on the Louisville Rivals message board steps they have/are taking to represent McGee. Don't forget to mention your opinion of it based on your impression of the contact.

Not the ones Mr. Cox shared in the press conference either. I seriously doubt they would want you doing that either given your relationship with the attorneys involved.

I will guarantee she will not do it.

Wow - you spent a lot of time discussing things with no relevance to either my post or, the point. Where did I say anything other than Powell met with an attorney (one of many that she met with) in SC's association? At this point she has not retained the person that I referenced so, there is no contract, privilege or fiduciary responsibility to anyone. My only other point was that a lot of smart people - including attorneys that do not represent RP currently but are acquaintances / friends of his have advised him to stop talking.

All of your inane blather doesn't have anything to do with that and, those posts /points do not constitute revealing "confidential" information.

Do you understand now?

 

[Sec221]

Wow - you spent a lot of time discussing things with no relevance to either my post or, the point. Where did I say anything other than Powell met with an attorney (one of many that she met with) in SC's association? At this point she has not retained the person that I referenced so, there is no contract, privilege or fiduciary responsibility to anyone. My only other point was that a lot of smart people - including attorneys that do not represent RP currently but are acquaintances / friends of his have advised him to stop talking.

All of your inane blather doesn't have anything to do with that and, those posts /points do not constitute revealing "confidential" information.

Do you understand now?

No.

Your repeating information that an attorney shared with you about an on going investigation in their office about one of their clients cases without written consent to do so.

You are not their client and should not be repeating what services attorneys of that office are providing for their client unless you have been authorized to do so in writing by the attorney(s) and their client.

If they (McGee and Cox) wanted their investigation to be made public, they would have issued a press release and/or press conference. I don't recall such updates since Mr. Cox's initial press conference.

I've drawn the conclusion that they don't want it to be made public by the lack of updates.

You even posted that Mr. Cox did not want Pitino out their discussing it when he's involved and NOT a client of his at this time. How do you think he would take you posting information obtained from his office without written consent?

Like I posted earlier, get in writing from your friend and their client that it is OK to post information in writing on a public Louisville Rivals message board if you think it doesn't matter.

 

[turducken71]

You've gotta love the foundation. First they give Ramsay and his top assistants extravagant pay. Then they hire high priced lawyers. Time to find another charity.

 

[Sec221]

You've gotta love the foundation. First they give Ramsay and his top assistants extravagant pay. Then they hire high priced lawyers. Time to find another charity.

Instead of the "Firm", we have the "Foundation".

 

[BPGhost]

No.

Your repeating information that an attorney shared with you about an on going investigation in their office about one of their clients cases without written consent to do so.

You are not their client and should not be repeating what services attorneys of that office are providing for their client unless you have been authorized to do so in writing by the attorney(s) and their client.

If they (McGee and Cox) wanted their investigation to be made public, they would have issued a press release and/or press conference. I don't recall such updates since Mr. Cox's initial press conference.

I've drawn the conclusion that they don't want it to be made public by the lack of updates.

You even posted that Mr. Cox did not want Pitino out their discussing it when he's involved and NOT a client of his at this time. How do you think he would take you posting information obtained from his office without written consent?

Like I posted earlier, get in writing from your friend and their client that it is OK to post information in writing on a public Louisville Rivals message board if you think it doesn't matter.

The only attorney-client relationship currently is between Scott Cox and Andre McGee. I said nothing about any dealings between the two of them. I said that the Powell woman interviewed an attorney in that association. That is not confidential information, not part of any "ongoing investigation" and if you think that it is, you are simply a silly person.

The only other thing I posted it was that many people, including SC, had told Pitino to stop talking to the press. Again this is not "confidential information" because there is no attorney client relationship between SC and RP.

Do yourself a favor and simply stop talking like you know something about the law - you clearly don't.

 

[beakwithteeth]

"This law firm is a heavy hitter."

Tell me they called in "The Hammer"! Or at least "The Wolf" to fix this mess.

Go Cards!

 

[Louisvillian]

"This law firm is a heavy hitter."

Tell me they called in "The Hammer"! Or at least "The Wolf" to fix this mess.

Go Cards!

They called the Wolf.

 

[Sec221]

I resisted saying this before but, you are an idiot and apparently incapable of understanding the simplest of concepts.

The only attorney-client relationship currently is between Scott Cox and Andre McGee. I said nothing about any dealings between the two of them. I said that the Powell woman interviewed an attorney in that association. That is not confidential information, not part of any "ongoing investigation" and if you think that it is, you are simply a silly person.

The only other thing I posted it was that many people, including SC, had told Pitino to stop talking to the press. Again this is not "confidential information" because there is no attorney client relationship between SC and RP.

Do yourself a favor and simply stop talking like you know something about the law - you clearly don't.

My point is and you can verify with your attorney friends is that ALL and ANY information, correspondence, or whatever in regards to McGee's case is covered under the attorney-client relationship.

That would include anything to do with interviews with those who he sought such services for protection against. That would include the Powell woman who named him in her book.

Never posted anything in regards to attorney client privilege regarding Cox reaching out to Pitino.

Nothing you posted stated that any was shared about the case or discussed with Pitino.

My reference was in regards to your post about Cox not wanting Pitino talking about the case and drawing the same conclusion that he would not want you discussing matter publicly that you have been made privy to through your connections.

Your post:

he "escort queen" spent the better part of the week meeting with lawyers - including one in Scott Cox's office association.

My post:

Do you have any proof?

Your post:

Umm, I know the attorney in Cox's office that she spoke and, I know Scott Cox.

What have I missed. You said your proof was that you know the attorney she spoke to and, Scott Cox.

You posted that your proof was your connections to McGee's attorneys. So did you discuss or receive any information from your friend and/or Mr. Cox?

If not why would would you offer such as proof if no verification of such meetings took place between your attorney friend and Cox (post press conference of course)?

One other thing, I spoke with a friend in regards to this post. He made a comment called "New York City Lawyer Shopping".

It's happens when couples file for divorce. One will try to beat the other one out of all the best lawyers by just meeting with them. Once they have talked to the lawyer, that lawyer cannot represent the other person in the divorce (conflict). Same thing in holds true in KY.

Was that what you were referring to when you said meeting?

He told me that if an attorney talks to a person about representation, it is confidential whether they enter into an agreement or not in Kentucky. It has something to do with public trust.

 

[BPGhost]

My point is and you can verify with your attorney friends is that ALL and ANY information, correspondence, or whatever in regards to McGee's case is covered under the attorney-client relationship.

That would include anything to do with interviews with those who he sought such services for protection against. That would include the Powell woman who named him in her book.

Never posted anything in regards to attorney client privilege regarding Cox reaching out to Pitino.

Nothing you posted stated that any was shared about the case or discussed with Pitino.

My reference was in regards to your post about Cox not wanting Pitino talking about the case and drawing the same conclusion that he would not want you discussing matter publicly that you have been made privy to through your connections.

Your post:

he "escort queen" spent the better part of the week meeting with lawyers - including one in Scott Cox's office association.

My post:

Do you have any proof?

Your post:

Umm, I know the attorney in Cox's office that she spoke and, I know Scott Cox.

What have I missed. You said your proof was that you know the attorney she spoke to and, Scott Cox.

You posted that your proof was your connections to McGee's attorneys. So did you discuss or receive any information from your friend and/or Mr. Cox?

If not why would would you offer such as proof if no verification of such meetings took place between your attorney friend and Cox (post press conference of course)?

One other thing, I spoke with a friend in regards to this post. He made a comment called "New York City Lawyer Shopping".

It's happens when couples file for divorce. One will try to beat the other one out of all the best lawyers by just meeting with them. Once they have talked to the lawyer, that lawyer cannot represent the other person in the divorce (conflict). Same thing in holds true in KY.

Was that what you were referring to when you said meeting?

He told me that if an attorney talks to a person about representation, it is confidential whether they enter into an agreement or not in Kentucky. It has something to do with public trust.

1. WRONG. You are laboring until the false premise that there is one case - Andre McGee's. There are in fact many competing interests / cases some of which have only the vaguest indirect connection to one another. The Powell woman interviewing attorneys has ZERO to do with AM's case (NCAA violations) and everything to do with her potentially being charged with human trafficking. Furthermore, any attorney interviewed by Powell for the purpose of potentially retaining them, is not bound by the attorney/client privilege that exists between AM & SC unless, that attorney has also been retained by McGee and in that event they would not even take a meeting with her as it would be a conflict of interest.

2. The Powell woman interviewing attorneys is information that is in the public domain - anyone - from reporters to secretaries who saw her walking in the front door, are in no way shape or form, barred or precluded from sharing that information that she walked through the front door or that a meeting took place. Now if someone were to divulge the confidential communications of said meeting, that would be different but, that's not what I said - is it?

3. Your friend is as confused as you are. Given that McGee already retained the representation that he sought, Powell can interview a million lawyers and it will have no bearing on him. She is more than likely getting multiple opinions on her situation and how the respective attorneys would handle her case, fee structures and the like. Who knows - she may even being trying to find someone who will represent her pro bono (that's a legal term) simply for the free advertising that would come with her case.

I've put things in as simple terms as possible - if you don't understand it finally - I'm not sure what else to tell you. Please note however that I am not in the market for a pen pal.

 

[OmegaCard]

Never heard of lawyer shopping but large corporations retain counsel from the powerful firms. That way the employees/competition can't hire any other lawyer from the firm. Makes it difficult to hire a lawyer with enough clout to go after them.