Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

I think we've got a couple of lawyers in here who feel it is their duty to defend their profession from anyone who might attack it.  I don't think anyone is really intending to attack the legal profession, fellas - nor is anyone saying lawyers have never had any value to anyone whatsoever who ever lived in any society throughout all of history.

If you're speaking to me, I don't feel it's my brotherly "duty." Not at all. I do feel it's just right to defend someone/anyone against accusations that aren't backed up by facts. It's easy to cast aspersions. That's my response to that one. Is it "Scout-like" to accuse without proof, even if it's convenient and helps make your point? You guys probably know more about today's standard of Scout-likeness, given my years of absence.

20 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

I guess my question is this - to a lot of us on the outside, it looks like the legal teams are just billing, billing, billing, and nothing's getting accomplished.  In the legal profession, is there any reward at all for efficiency?  Why haven't they just moved on and gotten something done yet?  

I really think you will need to ask your local exec's who'll need to ask their superiors who'll need to ask Mosbey. The BSA controls the stick and rudders on this whole thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been following. IF they were forthcoming and facilitated full disclosure from the jump, many of these hours would not be logged. Right? Are you saying the TCC is resisting progress?

Now, I will share my own experience. The first day of law school I told my cohorts I would not practice law for long. Reason? I couldn't see myself tethered to billable hours for the rest of my life and I didn't plan on litigating or owning my own firm. I wanted to figure out what's what and move into a business role. In many respects, I look back with regret that I didn't take the in-house role I was offered with HP immediately after graduation. My life is full of such regrets. Oh, well.

I distinctly recall being told, "You only billed X hours on this series of agreements. There's no way you did it that fast. Think about any other time that went into how your structured it, etc." I was once told I could "bill the time you think about it, even on the john." There you have it. I didn't like it. I left after 7 years and helped start an entertainment venture. That said, I will not impugn someone else because I don't know what they're doing. However, I know some of the men on the TCC and they rigorously review all invoices and ensure me/us the professionals are working their tails off.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If you're speaking to me, I don't feel it's my brotherly "duty." Not at all. I do feel it's just right to defend someone/anyone against accusations that aren't backed up by facts. It's easy to cast aspersions. That's my response to that one. Is it "Scout-like" to accuse without proof, even if it's convenient and helps make your point? You guys probably know more about today's standard of Scout-likeness, given my years of absence.

I wasn't really speaking to anyone in particular, in truth.  I think that there's just some surprise from us non-legal folks at the amount of money changing hands without going to the survivors.  I think we can all agree that we want to maximize the payouts to survivors in the hopes that it at least starts to make up for the injury you've suffered.  This happened in Scouting, and Scouting shouldn't have been about that, and it's up to Scouting to make you whole - or, at least, more whole. I would also guess that many of us also hope to minimize the damage to the BSA program.  These goals are, unfortunately, at cross-purposes, at least at face value.

Speaking personally, I am surprised that lawyers in such a case would take 40% of the settlement before it reached survivors (or as was mentioned above, 36%).  Is such a large piece of the pie typical for cases like this?  

(I know text can disguise meaning, so just know that my questions are sincere and not intended to be leading toward any one conclusion or argument).

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Are you saying the TCC is resisting progress?

Goodness, no.  I was legitimately asking what was taking so long.  I haven't followed along as closely as some of you folks, as this whole process has been emotionally draining to me as someone who did have a good experience in the Scouts. 

If anything, it looks again as though the BSA presented a second offer which was again viewed as wholly insufficient and insulting to survivors.  But if we all agree on that, that this offer is insufficient, what's holding us up?  Are we waiting for the BSA to bring another offer to the table?  Are we waiting for the judge to rule on what assets can be rightfully classified as restricted?  What's the next step?  (I suppose the answer to that may well be more complicated than I know).

Please do read my questions as sincere, which is how I intend them.  This is not an area in which I have any expertise at all, and I don't really know whether this sort of timeline is typical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Great quote ... “All of us have discounted our rates on these cases because, if all the money goes to the lawyers, there’s not going to be anything left for survivors,” said Susan Boswell, an Arizona bankruptcy attorney who has worked on several abuse cases involving the Catholic Church in which she has dropped her hourly rate — normally $700 — to as low as $450, she said."

Still immoral if it's only half as immoral.  

Index the "discounted" maximum rate to 10 times minimum wage.  I just have trouble calling $450 per hour "discounted".

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

I don't think anyone is really intending to attack the legal profession, fellas - nor is anyone saying lawyers have never had any value to anyone whatsoever who ever lived in any society throughout all of history.

Absolutely agree.   The law can absolutely be a noble profession and extremely hard.   And some lawyers are absolutely just charging large sums when their clients can afford it and their clients agree.  I'm really not thinking this is the BSA situation though.  There is something completely immoral about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

However, I know some of the men on the TCC and they rigorously review all invoices and ensure me/us the professionals are working their tails off.

We are not accusing specific individuals.  It's the whole situation.  Anyone can feel emotionally connected and work their hearts out for $1000 per hour. 

How about doing it for $100 per hour?  Ya definitely won't starve at that rate? 

It's emotional for me because my sons worked as camp staff.   I think of their hard work ... often working wake-up to bed-time for minimum wage, effectively $4 per hour.   Or the lower level scouting staff that earns a fraction of their value.  ... OR ... The millions of BSA adult volunteers over the years that have not been paid and instead paid thousands to volunteer.  ...

Think of it ... High point of membership was 7,000,000 youth (or so).  Over 100 years, say average one million new scouts per year.   Take 25% of that as registered adult leaders.   That's 25 million adult volunteers that worked for free.  ... CORRECTION ... that paid to volunteer and then paid again all their own expenses. 

Now, consider the morality of billing $1000 per hour and convincing people you are driven by the wrongs done in the past.  

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

I wasn't really speaking to anyone in particular, in truth.  I think that there's just some surprise from us non-legal folks at the amount of money changing hands without going to the survivors.  I think we can all agree that we want to maximize the payouts to survivors in the hopes that it at least starts to make up for the injury you've suffered.

Gotcha. Thanks for saying that. I'm with you. It's incredibly frustrating. My wife has had enough of listening to me about it so I lay it off on one of my brothers and two of my sisters.

15 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

I am surprised that lawyers in such a case would take 40% of the settlement before it reached survivors (or as was mentioned above, 36%).  Is such a large piece of the pie typical for cases like this?  

Yup. I've probably spoken too much about this already, I guess. For not having to put together a full blown case to bring to court, with all the tedious, expensive and time consuming components of discovery and all, I couldn't agree more. It's a pretty slick 40%. Thus, I'm trying to go it alone. I'm an attorney, but not a litigator and especially not one who's done a bunch of sexual abuse cases. That said, some of the claimant attorneys were well into the process of bringing civil actions when the cases were stayed by the bankruptcy filing. If you get 40% from 25, 50 or 1000's of clients, that seems outrageous to me, especially if all it entailed was the client(s) filling out a form and submitting it to the court. That's an oversimplification to make my point, but still...

16 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

(I know text can disguise meaning, so just know that my questions are sincere and not intended to be leading toward any one conclusion or argument).

I understand. I apologize if I overreacted, as well.

16 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

If anything, it looks again as though the BSA presented a second offer which was again viewed as wholly insufficient and insulting to survivors.  But if we all agree on that, that this offer is insufficient, what's holding us up?  Are we waiting for the BSA to bring another offer to the table?  Are we waiting for the judge to rule on what assets can be rightfully classified as restricted?  What's the next step?  (I suppose the answer to that may well be more complicated than I know).

Multiple things. I'm sure someone else will better detail what they are.

8 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Still immoral if it's only half as immoral.  

Hm. Immoral because of...? Rate? Market willingness to pay it? Lack of access by all of society? As I've said before, attorneys aren't the only people with high rates or compensation tied to commission. I guess you have indictments for many sectors of the market economy?

On the access to the best and the brightest, I tend to agree that it is unfortunate. Immoral? I don't know. A discussion for another thread or forum. As I've said before, this inequity stretches across medicine (some doc's are better than others and I'm not saying access is denied to those who can't pay), accounting, broking, architecture, construction, personal coaching, fishing guides, landscapers and so on and so forth. I drove an unsafe tin can of a car as my school commuter because I couldn't afford a tank of a Mercedes or SUV. (A Subaru Justy. Look it up. Effectively a Yugo made by Subaru.) I sold it when my wife got no more than bumped by a substantive vehicle and it looked like a beer can I smashed against my forehead after one too many. We drove an unsafe car because that's all we could afford. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I understand. I apologize if I overreacted, as well.

No need to apologize at all!  My post should've been clearer to avoid any confusion.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Now, consider the morality of billing $1000 per hour and convincing people you are driven by the wrongs done in the past. 

By the way ... many plaintiff lawyers agree.  Just read Kosnoff's Twitter thread.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Now, consider the morality of billing $1000 per hour and convincing people you are driven by the wrongs done in the past.  

System indictment. Capitalism sucks, I guess, and all who benefit are evil, immoral and self-motivated. You can't charge what won't be paid. It's the system. And, you're speaking about the claimant attorneys, again, and exclusively. Here's how we "save" some money. Call Mr. Mosbey and have him fire the current BSA professionals and insert some who charge a cool $100 per hour. I can support that move 100%. I'm sorry, but I understand it seems ridiculous and painful, but that's an argument for a thread on the morality of capitalism, inherent value vs. market value and a bunch of other stuff I won't say because Matt R. with say I'm waxing too academic. :) 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

By the way ... many plaintiff lawyers agree.  Just read Kosnoff's Twitter thread.  

Yikes. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. Not your comment, but a guy who's "won" 100's of millions of dollars for clients, collected his 1/3+ and now lives on a yacht in Puerto Rico bemoaning fees by other attorneys. Please, let's not let that "pot call the kettle black." Not even dark blue or purple. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

System indictment. Capitalism sucks, I guess, and all who benefit are evil, immoral and self-motivated. You can't charge what won't be paid. It's the system. And, you're speaking about the claimant attorneys, again, and exclusively. Here's how we "save" some money. Call Mr. Mosbey and have him fire the current BSA professionals and insert some who charge a cool $100 per hour. I can support that move 100%. I'm sorry, but I understand it seems ridiculous and painful, but that's an argument for a thread on the morality of capitalism, inherent value vs. market value and a bunch of other stuff I won't say because Matt R. with say I'm waxing too academic. :) 

Courts and DOJ in other cases have clamped down on excessive fees.  This one seems like she simply doesn't care or is overwhelmed.  Look at the Department of Justice going after law firms representing Purdue Pharma as part of their bankruptcy case.  I wonder if the DOJ will step in at some point (probably well after the fact).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Honestly, it's those same BSA professionals that are clinging on to Summit for dear life.

Summit seems like the obvious sacrificial lamb to me.  Philmont, Northern Tier, even Seabase have something to offer.  But Summit is the least popular of the sites, the most expensive, and only BSA National seems to give a damn about it.

At least then they could actually say they're contributing to the survivor's fund, and contributing seriously.  If everyone else knows that BSA National isn't getting out of this intact, why doesn't BSA National know that?

For heaven's sake, save Philmont; it's the only one that's irreplaceable.  The Boundary Waters and the Florida Keys aren't going anywhere.  Sell three of the four HAB, and then National could actually make the argument that they're doing something substantial to contribute.

Edited by SilverPalm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yikes. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. Not your comment, but a guy who's "won" 100's of millions of dollars for clients, collected his 1/3+ and now lives on a yacht in Puerto Rico bemoaning fees by other attorneys. Please, let's not let that "pot call the kettle black." Not even dark blue or purple. 

You should not disparage the character of individuals so soon after saying we are accusing others.  It's probably fair game if he's viewing this from the side lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Courts and DOJ in other cases have clamped down on excessive fees.  This one seems like she simply doesn't care or is overwhelmed.  Look at the Department of Justice going after law firms representing Purdue Pharma as part of their bankruptcy case.  I wonder if the DOJ will step in at some point (probably well after the fact).

I agree it's run amok. As a claimant, I HATE it, but saying the TCC counsel reeled in the gig with "package or free steaks," is wrong and offensive when the BSA professionals are 2/3 of the billings and no one else is putting 10% into the Settlement Trust. They didn't even give you guys some nice t-bones or ribeyes for the summer campfires. This has mostly been directed at the claimants attorneys. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...