Barb: I'll disagree with you on this one. It strikes me as very plausible that a law firm would be willing to take this case on a contingency basis, especially with all the actual expenses paid for.
The concept could be that, since the case would be tried in New Mexico, the conflict could be framed as good, hard working local boys against those "evil Yankee New Yorkers" (a phrase whose unspoken but well understood subtext, of course, is "Jews"). With a sufficiently ignorant rural jury, that argument could be very powerful and effective, blowing away any amount of evidence the defendants might provide showing management incompetence and deceit.
Solv-Ex's lawyers surely can imagine that scenario, and the lawyers for the defendants presumably are aware of this risk as well, so the raw material is there for a quick financial settlement, of which the contingency lawyers would earn a goodly share for not much work.
Obviously, Solv-Ex's lawyers have not told me their plans, so I can't say for sure that is their strategy, but it strikes me as a plausible one under the circumstances. If that is in fact what they plan, it is evil and corrupt, extortion at its worst, but that is mainly the fault of the system, and it shouldn't be surprising that people take advantage of it, any more than we should be surprised that people who run companies sometimes lie to the investing public and try to fool them into thinking someone else was to blame for their failure. That still doesn't make it right.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the folks here to attack this immorality. |
