Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Flood the Gates: Escalate

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by studegator, May 2, 2024.

  1. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,399
    6,243
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    I'll say this, it's a smart business decision. They get the PR splash of being firmly in support of Israel and against the pro-Palestinian side (the unpopular side). There's also not much downside because any harm it could do to law student recruiting is unlikely to have any real effect due to where Greenberg is positioned. Doesn't matter if they win or lose the lawsuit. They've already gotten their biggest benefit.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    7,266
    2,675
    2,998
    Jan 15, 2008
    GT is an international law firm with offices in every financial center in the world. It sure didn’t start out that way. It started with some guys that were locked out of the traditional firms, because back in the day, those firms didn’t hire Jews. And those guys proved that there was a place for really smart, creative lawyering (particularly in the real-estate-heavy and growing world of Miami). While it might’ve been a firm started by some bright Jewish guys in Miami who couldn’t get hired in the old white-collared firms (and this is not rumor or legend, this is absolute fact), the firm has been built to one of the biggest in the world and is certainly no longer a Jewish-identified firm.

    Taking this case itself is a reputational challenge and risk, because they risk the flight of clients. Losing would exacerbate the challenges. Winning, however, would make a very loud statement.
     
  3. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,399
    6,243
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Disagree. They stand far more to gain than to lose in terms of clients. That's why they're taking it. Defending Palestinian speech is what's risky. Going after "terrorists" and targeting unpopular groups that are currently being torn apart in the media? That's a PR bonanza.
     
  4. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    7,266
    2,675
    2,998
    Jan 15, 2008
    Their lawyers in Saudi Arabia and UAE, not to mention Amsterdam and Berlin (which have heavy Arab money), probably disagree. But I’m hoping in this case that it’s the best decision they ever made.
     
  5. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,399
    6,243
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    The assumption you're making is that the Saudis and UAE care about the Palestinians. I don't think they do.
    Saudi Arabia Steps Up Arrests Of Those Attacking Israel Online
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    7,266
    2,675
    2,998
    Jan 15, 2008
    True. Today. It’s geopolitically convenient. But, a few years again, the Sunni mullah were screaming for the death to Israel and the West. Now, they’re in their proxy war with Iran, and so “the enemy of my enemy is”, well in Israel’s case, my not loud and vociferous enemy. That can change in a flash.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,058
    1,745
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    Depending where and the context they may not actually have the right to incite violence and terrorism. I suspect you don’t have that right on most university campuses.
     
  8. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,399
    6,243
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    The line is drawn at imminent lawless action. Imminent being the key word. This guide isn't that.
     
  9. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Funny. Takes a PI firm, albeit a good one, to sue Chiquita for paying right wing death squads to kill 100s. In that case, Big Law defends instead of sues. They are not motivated by profit, Big Law argues, but nobly defending its employees

    Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the banana grower benefited from payments to a right-wing militia that killed hundreds of people in Colombia, while Chiquita's lawyers says those payments were made in an effort to quell credible and viable threats against its employees.

    Some of the victims worked in the banana fields and were engaged in union activities. Others appear to have been caught in the crosshairs of conflict in the region.

    The armed group that claimed responsibility for those deaths, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), often faced off against the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) during the country’s long civil war.






    Only gets to trial after multiple appeals, some of rulings favorable to Chiquita 17 years. Chiquita was criminally prosecuted, but with the help of Big Law, pays a $25 million fine and implements a compliance program

    #07-161: 03-19-07 Chiquita Brands International Pleads Guilty to Making Payments to a Designated Terrorist Organization And Agrees to Pay $25 Million Fine

    Chiquita pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Chiquita's sentence will include a $25 million criminal fine, the requirement to implement and maintain an effective compliance and ethics program, and five years' probation. Chiquita also has agreed to cooperate in this ongoing investigation. Sentencing will occur on June 1, 2007.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1