Call it a wild conspiracy theory, but I believe the charge called on Acey was a “David Stern”-like ploy to get ratings happy Duke into the Final Four.
“The selection committee knew the NCAA is in the process of deciding whether to opt out of the final three years (2011-13) of its 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS. If the contract is put on the open market, it is smart (TV) business to attempt to maximize – big-time – the 2010 tourney’s ratings.” NY Daily News (commenting on why Duke was given the easiest regional bracket).
Clearly Zoubek did not have position and Baylor was posed to take over before the “and 1″ was taken away.
You make the call:
d. Attorney Conference
The attorney conference should take about 5 minutes. It takes place after the client has left. It gives the attorneys a chance to talk about the issues without the client present.
Protected: A view from the back of the van…
c. Ending
The ending of the client consultation is where you need to cross your t’s and dot your i’s. Unlike the middle of the round, here the attorneys should be doing most of the talking. Attorneys should be making sure that anything the client wanted addressed in their consolation is addressed.
i. Catering to the client’s needs
After an attorney has “looped” a clients narrative back to them, it is time to make sure the client is satisfied with the meeting. This can be accomplished by asking questions like “based on our conversation today, do you have any other questions for us?”. Or “Is there any question you have that we have not addressed?”. These questions make sure you satisfy the client by directly asking them if they are satisfied, instead of just guessing. Continue reading »
Some background on the case:
Facts: The General Allotment Act of 1887 gave each male Sioux head of household 320 acres of land and most other individuals 160 acres. Act provided that the allotted land would be held in trust by the US. Rather than farm the land, the Sioux leased the land to white farmers and lived off of the rentals. But, over time, there was a great fractionation of interests on land; therefore, a small piece of land was owned by hundreds of people. This made a bookkeeping nightmare when distributing rents to the owner. With § 207 of the Land Consolidation Act, Congress tried to say than no fractional interest of less than 2% could pass by intestacy or devise; but instead escheat to the tribe.
Issue: Does the “escheat” provision of the Indian Land Consolidation Act affect a taking of property without just compensation?
For those of you that have been following, I have been very busy the past week writing my 90 page legal comment for my law journal. It will be done tomorrow and then I will be posting like mad. Thanks for the patience.
A little G&R to get you through your day
Recent Comments