This is something Clemens’ people aren’t doing right now, and for Clemens’ sake, they be well-advised to cut it out

Jesus, how can we frickin' put any trust in what this jerkwad author has to say when he makes stupid grammatical mistakes like that.

Man.

Jesus, how can we frickin' put any trust in what this jerkwad author has to say when he makes stupid grammatical mistakes like that.

(1) are you talking about leaving the 'd off the end of a word?
(2) are you serious?

i dislike roger clemens
i like roger clemens

i dislike you
i dislike you also

no need to read after this point

(1) are you talking about leaving the 'd off the end of a word?

Yes.

(2) are you serious?

Yes, because I'm the one who wrote it. Gimmie a break, I've only been to two Self-loathers Anonymous meetings.

Hey, I know about those meetings, but I was loathe to admit it myself.

Prudent litigation counsel does not choose to fight their cases in the media, however, they fight them through their pleadings and with their legal arguments. This is something Clemens’ people aren’t doing right now, and for Clemens’ sake, they be well-advised to cut it out.

I disagree. Litigation and the lawyers exist to serve the interest of the client, not the other way around. Clemens is mostly fighting a PR battle, in the press, in Congress, and through his litigation. They believe that this is helping to prepare the ground for some of that.

I constantly tell my clients that the litigation should not govern their life; their life comes first, and the litigation should be made to fit into it.

Also, there is a very high probability that the litigation will settle or peter out. McNamee really does not have the resources to fund the type of litigation that Clemens can. There are a dozen different ways that it can be worked out. Or strung out. Depending on the preferred PR strategy.

Prudent litigation counsel does not choose to fight their cases in the media, however, they fight them through their pleadings and with their legal arguments. This is something Clemens’ people aren’t doing right now, and for Clemens’ sake, they be well-advised to cut it out.

Hardin would presumably prefer not to do it that way, but he has an unusual client in an unusual situation.

But though the reality of the situation has changed from PR to litigation, the strategy has not, and this report can only be seen as an exercise in the former, not the latter.

I suspect that Randy Hendricks (and Rusty Hardin) know that this Clemens Manifesto is not going to convince anyone of anything. It certainly won't convince the people who think Clemens is guilty that Clemens didn't use steroids, and the people who are giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt are already aware that the statistical record can't possibly prove (or disprove) that Clemens used steroids.

In that sense I think the purpose of the manifesto is simply to add to the aura of innocence that Clemens is trying to create, i.e., that he did not use steroids and that he is willing to do everything he can to fight the accusations. In this respect, he's fighting the battle on several fronts: statements, interviews, press conferences, Congressional testimony, lawsuit, and now this manifesto.

As to the lawsuit itself, he obviously wants to win it (and I think needs to win it if it goes to a jury), but his reason for filing it was that it adds to the PR battle, so in that sense I think his lawyers understand that the risks he is taking (e.g. holding a press conference, making public statements, etc) -- while risks that they perhaps wouldn't advise a normal client to take -- are nonetheless necessary for the overall strategy he has adopted.

If Clemens's sole strategy were to win the litigation, then of course he wouldn't be doing all of this other stuff. But, as we've seen, his strategy is much broader than that -- and in a sense, it had to be, since he was going to have to testify in front of Congress anyway if he hoped to convince anyone that he didn't do this. (He could have plead the Fifth, but that would have been a death knell for him PR-wise.)

In that sense I think the impending specter of Congressional testimony basically forced Clemens out of the darkness here, and basically foreclosed any idea he might have had of adopting a narrow PR strategy simply focused on winning the litigation.

Good points all. Maybe I'm relying too much on personal experience here (every time I've had a case shift into PR it's gone sideways on me). Stepping out of my profession and onto a soapbox, though, I'd question the ethics of using litigation for PR purposes (though we know it's done all the time).

Good points all. Maybe I'm relying too much on personal experience here (every time I've had a case shift into PR it's gone sideways on me).

My experience too. I hate clients who want to use PR to fight a lawsuit, such as the "if we threaten to publicize this, they'll settle" argument.

Stepping out of my profession and onto a soapbox, though, I'd question the ethics of using litigation for PR purposes (though we know it's done all the time).

Depends on whether the underlying claim is meritorious, obviously. If Hardin filed a suit that he knew was false for the sole purpose of sending a message to the media, then unquestionably that's unethical. If Clemens is telling the truth, though, then he has not only a legally-solid claim but a morally-solid one.

Maybe I'm relying too much on personal experience here (every time I've had a case shift into PR it's gone sideways on me).

Sometimes you don't have a choice, because the case is a matter of public interest. I've had a few of those. In those cases, the client is advised to retain professional PR people (unless they have some on staff), because that is really beyond the scope of my competence.

I'd question the ethics of using litigation for PR purposes (though we know it's done all the time).

Not just unethical. It can be tortious (depending on the abuse of process/malicious prosecution law in the jurisdiction), and a violation of Court Rules, assuming the jurisdiction has some form of FRCP Rule 11.

For those interested in the ethics, there is a version of Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in most states:

Rule 3.1. MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS.

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

If Hardin filed a suit that he knew was false for the sole purpose of sending a message to the media, then unquestionably that's unethical.

I'd hope that if Clemens is lying through his teeth, Hardin doesn't know, even if it requires quite intentional ignorance on his part. I mean, it's one thing to defend a person you know to be guilty of a crime, for example, because there are myriad defenses you can trot out that aren't likely to lead to perjury or other nonsense. With a defamation case, though, man, we're talking pretty zero-sum here.

I hate clients who want to use PR to fight a lawsuit, such as the "if we threaten to publicize this, they'll settle" argument.

Has never worked for me, that's for sure. Most of my work is defense though. Whenever those clients are on the receiving end of the publicity threat, they've made the same damn analysis: do we have unacceptable exposure? If yes, settle. If no, screw em. When they publicize, we'll deny and take it from there.

Edit: and yeah, what Srul said.

Isn't Hardin sort of a spotlight lover? I remember a few things I read about him before this seemed to indicate that was the case.