Allen Iverson Fights About not Being in a Fight

Iverson’s Issue: Allen Iverson flew off the handle at a recent deposition.  Some might say this is not surprising since the case centered in on his involvement in a bar fight.  He told the lawyer “go to hell… I die before I let you get me this time” and “How the hell you live?”  (It is true that the same attorney deposed Iverson twice before resulting in six figure settlements, so he’s got a basis for his anger.)  This time Iverson avoided a payout… He did not, however, avoid embarrassment.

What struck me was that this entire incident was completely avoidable.  A reasonable attorney should be able to diagnose the other side’s behavior, and manage the situation without a blow-up.

So with that, let’s talk about how it got this bad, and how to avoid it in the future. Likely, one of two things happened.  One, the opposing attorney provoked him with an aggressive strategy.  Two, this attorney was a jerk.

Option 1 – It’s a Strategy Session:

An opposing attorney’s traditional strategy is to get the result he wants. S/he knows the issues, and wants your understanding of the scenario, your facts, and sticks to business.

Option 1 – Plan of Attack:

1. Build a Relationship: There is a purpose to a deposition and the deposing attorney has legitimate goals.  Overall, it should be a factual and witness investigation, not a personal attack.
2. Control the Message: Another goal is also to determine if a witness is likeable and credible.  (Ever seen a liar? Try to remember you’re not the only one who can recognize a liar.)  The sooner you establish credibility, the better.
3. It’s not Rocket Science: Be straightforward, be honest, stay calm, and don’t cause any surprises.
4. Safety Valve: At any time, if things get heated, take a break.

Option 2 – You’re a Jerk:

This also may not be surprising, but attorneys have egos… usually big ones.  Some use those egos to make character attacks instead of searching for facts.  Again, this should be easy to spot.

Option 2 – Plan of Attack:

Everything above still applies, but in this instance, it is important to explain the ramifications of losing your cool on the record.  Especially in a bar fight case, losing your cool is more obvious than a punch line in a sitcom.  But just like in a sitcom, a manager’s edits are the key to success.  I would instead suggest:

1. Patience: Allow the guy a little leeway. Everyone has bad days, maybe this is his and he’s projecting.
2. If at First You Don’t Succeed… This is when the lawyer should break in.  It’s time to change the dynamic, discuss the other side’s approach on the record, or take a break.
3. Be the Shoulder: Lastly, when your client has a problem, he should know the first person to discuss it with is you, not through a confrontation with the other side.  (Just like everyone can spot a liar, everyone can also spot a hot-head.)

At the end of the day, the attorney’s strategy could have been to provoke Iverson… It was, after all, a case about his role in a fight.  If so, he’s brilliant because it worked and Iverson’s attorney let it happen.  Granted, Iverson didn’t pay this time, but he still made the news and it wasn’t for an MVP award or Finals appearance.

Let’s be honest, some people play dirty, but it’s your attorney’s job to keep it clean.

Jesse (Don’t Touch my Body) Ventura Receives a TKO from Court

Jesse Ventura

Jesse’s Issue: Former Gov. Jesse Ventura filed a lawsuit against the Dept of Homeland Security & the TSA alleging the organizations violated his constitutional rights to privacy through the airport’s “enhanced screening measures.”

Legal Rules: The question of whether the pat down invaded his privacy was not even dealt with by the court.  The Court dismissed the case based on procedural rules.  All challenges to TSA procedures must be done at the Circuit Court of Appeals, not the District Court.  If you don’t play by the (procedural) rules, game over, Mr. Ventura.

Analysis:  Regardless, Jesse’s claim likely would have failed. The concept of due process provides that certain rights – life, liberty, or property – cannot be deprived without constitutionally adequate procedures. The procedures provides a heightened level of protection against government interference.

The degree of protection, however, depends on the issue.  In Jesse’s case, the right of privacy is a historically fundamental right and traditionally requires the highest level of scrutiny.  Any rule/procedure which restricts or inhibits the right of privacy must pass the court’s “strict scrutiny” test.  The test traditionally examines whether the government’s procedure is justifiably reasonable, and whether the procedure is the least restrictive method to meet the end goal.

The Supreme Court also determined that the right to travel is a fundamental liberty.  Similarly, any restriction to travel must be narrowly tailored so that it does not overly inhibit travel.  Ultimately, the Court’s goal is to find the right balance between fundamental rights to travel, privacy, and the government’s ability to adequately protect its citizens.

“… And in this Corner, we Have a Loser”  In Jesse’s case, if the Court would have scrutinized the rights and procedures, Jesse would have lost.  While I personally roll my eyes at pat downs, and shiver when I think about walking barefoot on LAX’s floor, the government’s requirements are not overly broad (they do not completely restrict my right to travel). Simply put, pat downs and screenings allow for travel, allow the government to implement procedural safeguards, address national security concerns, and do so in the least restrictive way possible.

As it stands now, pat downs stay… and his nickname probably won’t change to Jesse “The Scholar” Ventura.