Freep alert:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/23/law-firm-fired-msu/1423174002/
This relates to Strampel's legal issues about supervising Nassar and not his own sexual harassment issues.
The lawyer MSU hired to defend Strampel pointed the finger at MSU saying Strampel was following orders of MSU's lawyers. MSU didn't like that so they fired that law firm from representing 6 other MSU employees (including Klages). MSU has been paying the lawyers bills for all 7.
The article is about the ethical issues of doing that since the lawyers are bound to serve the best interests of the person they are defending, even if someone else is paying the bills. It sends a conflicting message to the new lawyers being hired about to whom they should be catering.
Some parts of the article:
The spat between Clark Hill and MSU centers on a common question: To whom do lawyers owe their allegiance: the organization that is paying the bill, or the individual employee who is their client?
"The rules are very clear on that," said Stephen Fedo, general counsel for the Chicago law firm Neal Gerber Eisenberg and special counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court’s Board of Admissions to the Bar and its Committee on Character and Fitness. "The lawyer's loyalty is first, last and always to the client."
The issue isn't likely to go away soon. Earlier this fall, the Free Press reported the university is covering half of the legal bills for Strampel and all of the legal bills for the other six employees, including former gymnastics coach Kathie Klages. That sets up the possibility for ongoing conflict about what is in the best interest for the individual versus what is in the best interests for MSU. In other words, will the lawyers for Strampel and Klages give the best defense for their clients if it would hurt MSU?
After Strampel's arraignment, his attorney, John Dakmak, made his statement outside of the courtroom, including saying that the Office of the General Counsel was heavily involved in the Nassar investigation and follow-up.In doing so, he was, in effect, saying Strampel shouldn't be convicted because he was following the orders of the general counsel and others.
Emails obtained by the Free Press from a source inside MSU show that involvement. As reported on in May by the Free Press, at least two members of the general counsel's office were involved in the investigation, the protocols put in place and the plans for follow-up. The follow-up included new conditions for how Nassar could see patients. It's a matter of dispute over who was ultimately responsible for making sure the rules were followed.
Three days after Dakmak's statement, Clark Hill was told it would be replaced and all the employees MSU was paying for — except Strampel — would be placed with other lawyers.
On April 3, Clark Hill's Steven Stapleton, one of the lawyers involved in defending all of the MSU employees, including Strampel, wrote to MSU to protest the move, according to documents obtained by the Free Press under a Freedom of Information Act request.
After recapping the statement, Stapleton clarifies Strampel's defense, saying Strampel "acted at the direction of the Office of General Counsel and did what he was instructed to do by the OGC and others in the Administration."
That portion of the letter was redacted and heavily blacked out in the copy provided to the Free Press by MSU. A source close to Engler provided the Free Press with an unredacted copy of that page.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/23/law-firm-fired-msu/1423174002/
This relates to Strampel's legal issues about supervising Nassar and not his own sexual harassment issues.
The lawyer MSU hired to defend Strampel pointed the finger at MSU saying Strampel was following orders of MSU's lawyers. MSU didn't like that so they fired that law firm from representing 6 other MSU employees (including Klages). MSU has been paying the lawyers bills for all 7.
The article is about the ethical issues of doing that since the lawyers are bound to serve the best interests of the person they are defending, even if someone else is paying the bills. It sends a conflicting message to the new lawyers being hired about to whom they should be catering.
Some parts of the article:
The spat between Clark Hill and MSU centers on a common question: To whom do lawyers owe their allegiance: the organization that is paying the bill, or the individual employee who is their client?
"The rules are very clear on that," said Stephen Fedo, general counsel for the Chicago law firm Neal Gerber Eisenberg and special counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court’s Board of Admissions to the Bar and its Committee on Character and Fitness. "The lawyer's loyalty is first, last and always to the client."
The issue isn't likely to go away soon. Earlier this fall, the Free Press reported the university is covering half of the legal bills for Strampel and all of the legal bills for the other six employees, including former gymnastics coach Kathie Klages. That sets up the possibility for ongoing conflict about what is in the best interest for the individual versus what is in the best interests for MSU. In other words, will the lawyers for Strampel and Klages give the best defense for their clients if it would hurt MSU?
After Strampel's arraignment, his attorney, John Dakmak, made his statement outside of the courtroom, including saying that the Office of the General Counsel was heavily involved in the Nassar investigation and follow-up.In doing so, he was, in effect, saying Strampel shouldn't be convicted because he was following the orders of the general counsel and others.
Emails obtained by the Free Press from a source inside MSU show that involvement. As reported on in May by the Free Press, at least two members of the general counsel's office were involved in the investigation, the protocols put in place and the plans for follow-up. The follow-up included new conditions for how Nassar could see patients. It's a matter of dispute over who was ultimately responsible for making sure the rules were followed.
Three days after Dakmak's statement, Clark Hill was told it would be replaced and all the employees MSU was paying for — except Strampel — would be placed with other lawyers.
On April 3, Clark Hill's Steven Stapleton, one of the lawyers involved in defending all of the MSU employees, including Strampel, wrote to MSU to protest the move, according to documents obtained by the Free Press under a Freedom of Information Act request.
After recapping the statement, Stapleton clarifies Strampel's defense, saying Strampel "acted at the direction of the Office of General Counsel and did what he was instructed to do by the OGC and others in the Administration."
That portion of the letter was redacted and heavily blacked out in the copy provided to the Free Press by MSU. A source close to Engler provided the Free Press with an unredacted copy of that page.
