Getty Images
Not every development in an inherent public controversy requires a response. Sometimes the best response is not at all.
Attorney Rusty Hardin would probably have served his client better on Tuesday by not responding to the compelling submission of Ashley Solis, the first of 22 people suing Deshaun Watson for assault and harassment to attach her name to the lawsuit and publicly talk about the situation. Hardin’s long statement aims at a ‘gotcha’ moment by attacking this particular claim of Ashley Solis during her submission to reporters: ‘People say I only do it for money. This is false. ”
Hardin’s statement seeks to characterize it as a lie, and in turn Ashley Solis as a liar, by sharing chapter-and-verse details about settlement discussions that took place before her lawsuit was filed three weeks ago. Although Hardin uses the term ‘hush money’ to describe the initial settlement question, the emails revealed by Hardin reveal the standard type of pre-litigation communication in which attorneys make an effort to resolve potential claims without litigation. through back and forth the hope of reaching consensus.
The email confirms that the initial claim of $ 100,000 was not made in an unethical or improper manner, but in the normal way in which such matters unfold, with one attorney warning another attorney about the existence of a dispute and with both attorneys dealing messages until the dispute is, or is not, resolved. The initial claim was not conspicuous, given the ordinary value of civil litigation regarding claims as at issue here. Solis demanded $ 100,000 from attorney Tony Buzbee. This means that Solis and Buzbee would eventually accept less through the negotiation process. Most likely, the case would have been settled between $ 50,000 and $ 75,000.
From Hardin’s emails, it appears that the claim is not considered extortion or extortion, but as a lawful attempt to resolve the matter.
‘[I] wanted to see if Solis either wanted to help us understand the rationale behind the $ 100,000 question or come back with another figure, ”Scott Gaffield wrote on behalf of Watson. ‘Like I said [attorney] Cornelia [Brandfield-Harvey] last week we do not believe that the alleged facts show that Deshaun did anything wrong with regard to Mrs. Solis not, but we are nonetheless happy to continue the conversation about a reasonable settlement figure because we believe he can learn a lesson about being himself in this situation. ”
In other words, Watson’s camp was willing to consider paying something to settle the matter because, as Gaffield said, “we believe he can learn a lesson about how he put himself in this situation.”
Surprisingly, Hardin’s team voluntarily disclosed this communication, which was otherwise confidential and was never intended for public use. This shows that Watson’s representatives viewed Ashley Solis’ allegations as something that was not frivolous, but which was a useful opportunity to give Watson a “lesson on how he placed himself in this situation.”
More importantly, this attempt by Hardin and his team ultimately stems from a desire to portray Ashley Solis as a liar, because her lawyers set an initial requirement of $ 100,000 and that she now says it’s untrue to say that she does it “just for money.”
While it is common for lawyers to attack an adversary by portraying the adversary as a liar, there is one important thing to remember when doing so. The statement under attack must clearly and unequivocally be a lie.
To prove that Solis would have settled the case peacefully in February and without the cost, delay, uncertainty and inconvenience of lawsuits does not show that she is lying now when she says she is not doing it “just for money.” Although some of Buzbee’s remarks on non – money matters were unimportant, in part because the civil justice system is based on the idea that justice is distributed through the payment of money and not an eye for an eye (i.e. the presence of the “civil”), means the fact that Ashley Solis was willing to accept a lump sum as justice for the outrage she allegedly suffered without making the effort to file a lawsuit, it means not that she has some improper motive or it’s some kind of cash grab.
Hardin wants people to believe it is a cash grab. Now that we’ve seen and heard from Ashley Solis and acknowledged the extent to which her decision to disrupt the public will disrupt her life, who would reasonably claim to be trying to extort $ 100,000 from Watson?
Hardin was caught flat-footed in many ways by the assault of Buzbee on Watson in public opinion court. Although Buzbee did not act flawlessly, Hardin’s attempt to characterize Ashley Solis as someone who views her lawsuit against Watson as a ticket to a potential six-digit lottery prize and in turn misses the point.
Finally, what use is Hardin’s response to Watson? This is the question someone from Hardin’s team should have asked. And this is the hardest thing to do when the echo chamber starts to resound. There is often no one within the bubble of zealous proponents of one side’s position who can or wants to step back and say, “Should we really do that?”
If there was such a person in Watson’s legal team, today’s statement would undoubtedly not have been issued.