Why not 6, 8 or 10 o’clock?

Actually I’d love to see any film regarding this mess.

As a layman, I’d be intersted in hearing from our resident lawyers on these filings and whether they are tactical or do they have a chance of suceeding in court.

Pro bono, of course. Unless you want to send a bill to Seth.

I am a Texas licensed attorney, but not a litigation attorney, so the value of the following is severely limited.

Other than the incorrect usage of “Hobbessian’s Choice” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson’s_choice> a majority of the complaint appears to have merit. I notice that Liggett brought in a couple Houston attorneys to file the complaint, including an employment attorney.

The fraudulent inducement claim is very weak b/c the emails I read only show Sowell making statements about not intending to fulfill the agreement. Sowell is not a representative of the school, so his thoughts and opinions are irrelevant.

The breach of contract claim is obviously the strongest argument. The defamation claim is weak and an uphill burden to prove. Like others have said, it is likely just posturing and meant to allow Leach to claim punitive damages (only allowed for tort causes of action, not breach of contract claims). Some have mentioned the personal liability issue for Tech administrators, but it appears only Tech is a defendant at this time, which could change at any time. As for the Texas constitutional issues, I haven’t a clue on the merit of those, but they seem very weak at best.

I know this information is not real helpful, but there is only so much you can tell from a plaintiff’s petition. Only time will tell.

The contract issues are not difficult to assess. The tort claims are weak. This is a bad lawsuit for both sides to be involved with for a lot of reasons, mostly PR and future consideration issues (i.e. does Leach ever want to coach in college for a BCS school again?).

I would recommend Tech offer to pay the $800,000 longevity bonus and try to negotiate the remainder of the severance. This one issue casts Texas Tech as the “Bad Guy” to its alumni and to the casual observer alike. Leach served Tech for the time required to earn the bonus and it should be paid. Substantial performance is the concept. From Leach’s perspective, his lawyers should be telling him what I tell my Plaintiff’s going into commercial litigation, and I also show them a sign that hangs in my office,
“Old Gypsy Curse— may you have a lawsuit in which you know you are right.”

Being in a “hurt feelings” lawsuit on an extended basis is the equivalent of having a fingernail torn off on a repetitive basis while the suit is pending. It is a nagging worry that never goes away and tends to dominate your life. I would not wish a “good” lawsuit on anyone I cared about. I have clients who go from brunette to gray over the pendency of a lawsuit all of the time. It is the nature of the game. Now, there are also people for whom lawsuits are like water off a duck’s back. It’s no big deal. Both sides can play the litigation game for as long as they like (although Tech has unlimited resources to play the game whereas Leach’s resources are limited); however, I hope someone shows a little maturity and both sides sit down and mediate a resolution soon. Regardless of the verdict, there will be two losers in this litigation if it goes to trial. Not including Tech fans and alumni wjho are already big losers. This su**s.