Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (47677)	3/6/2002 11:06:25 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

If I had a lawyer, and in the course of an appeal process appealing a verdict in my favor, he publicly said anything BUT that he had proved my case, and especially if he publicly said that he had failed to prove my case, I would both fire him and sue him for malpractice. I don't think there's much more to it. --QS

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (47677)	3/7/2002 1:31:27 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Where do you see an apology in that? This is what lawyers are supposed to do, right Charles? This is the job of one's paid advocate: to side with one's adversary before the judge, and help urge the judge to approve a settlement written by the adversary which, from the plaintiff's point of view, amounts to pure capitulation even after most of the plaintiff's points were upheld on appeal. If everyone objected to little nits like that, half the trials in the country would lead to legal malpractice suits? --QS Message 17163106 While two years ago Justice Department prosecutors sought to expand their case and embarrass Microsoft at every turn, today the government's top trial lawyer repeatedly described the shortcomings of its case, while Microsoft's lawyers took every opportunity to agree with the views of the administration about most of the legal issues remaining and the proposed settlement.