Regarding Mac, he ended up in kind of a tough spot. He represents his clients, and not the poker community. That much is true. However, what is also true is that he runs (by his own admission) a "boutique law firm" which primarily caters to poker players. That's an interesting niche he's carved out, but it isn't exactly good for business when he ultimately releases a statement which is likely to be weaponized by alleged cheaters as evidence of exoneration.
So what happened here?
Mac was likely aware of limitations in CA law when he filed the case, but it wasn't clear cut. Much of this is up to interpretation by the presiding judge, and a favorable interpretation can lead to a lucrative settlement. Once the case was essentially reduced to rake recovery (back in June), it was basically dead in the water, aside from recovering token monies. However, Mac couldn't have known for sure that this would have happened. Sure, he knew it was a possibility, but I don't hold it against him for reaching for the stars initially.
At this point, and at all points, his duty to his clients was to get the best settlement possible. Indeed, he is required to act in their interests, and not in his own or that of the greater poker community. From that point of view, he acted reasonably, both in negotiating this moderate settlement AND making the statement that he did regarding Stones/Kuraitis.
However, I do wonder how this was framed to his clients, when Stones demanded such a strong statement of exoneration. While he ultimately has to do what his clients want, it's up to him to communicate the full issues involved with the settlement.
Specifically, he should have communicated that, while this settlement exceeds the best they could have done monetarily in court (which is obviously good), it comes at a steep price -- each plaintiff signing his/her name to a statement exonerating Stones/Kuraitis, which would likely be weaponized by the defendants to publicly claim innocence. Additionally, he should have advised his clients that they might face some backlash in the poker community for putting their names on such a statement, given the high-profile nature of this case, and the poker community's strong beliefs regarding the cheating accusations.
At that point, the clients might have had a bit more to think about besides money. This is different than accepting a settlement for a minor car accident, where there is no publicity or public backlash potential.
I am wondering if these concerns were communicated to the plaintiffs, or if Mac simply told them that this was the best they were going to do financially, and that it's likely either that or nothing. This, of course, is also true, but isn't the whole story.
An attorney can also give his opinion to his clients regarding settlement offers. He could say something like, "It's up to you, but personally I don't think this amount of money is worth putting out such a statement about Stones, given the public backlash and implications of this."
Often clients will do what their attorney advises, and can be easily led in one direction or another.
I have to imagine that the amount Mac was paid (very likely less than $20k) is peanuts to him. I'm a little surprised that he didn't frame this to clients as the settlement being too costly from a public shame standpoint, with advisement to reject it. However, I will concede that I'm not aware of his communication with his clients about this, so perhaps he did advise them of this, but they chose to take it anyway.
I do think it's possible that Mac didn't realize that Justin Kuraitis would show up on Twitter and wave this in everyone's faces in trollish fashion, and that the Stones Twitter account (also possibly operated by Justin) would do the same. Perhaps he would have advised differently had he known this.
There was also a small hole in the settlement which allowed Kuraitis to basically show up on Twitter and say what he wanted, which is exactly what he's doing.
So basically, short of being disallowed from being disclosing the settlement terms, Kuraitis was free to show up on Twitter and bash people, which is exactly what he's doing. Ouch.Kuraitis will be allowed to comment about the litigation and the underlying events, but may not otherwise disclose the terms of this agreement and the forthcoming settlement agreement other than to say that he did not pay any money in connection with the settlement.
At the same time, Term #18 of the settlement states, "Setting Plaintiffs agree not to make negative or disparaging pubic statements about Stones, its employees, or Kuraitis."
Term #19 sates that Stones agrees not to make any negative statements about the Plaintiffs, but that term does NOT mention Kuraitis.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
