[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156216#msg156216 date=1455145968]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.
[/quote]

Well, of course.  If figuring out the truth was compromised in any way--i.e., the law firm only spoke to one side of this dispute and ignored the other side--then that's a massive problem.  But my point, and I think garvin's point, was that the existence of a previous relationship--standing by itself--shouldn't impact that.  The bigger concern would be my other point, which is that if this were just providing cover to a decision Muir already wanted to make, in which case the investigation was a sham.  That may have been what happened.  I don't know.  But you gain the trust of clients by being candid with them about what appears to have happened while being constructive about what to do next.  That's what I meant when I said it would be a benefit to have a firm with a previous relationship with Stanford doing the investigation, who can tailor recommendations on how to proceed to what they already know about Stanford's internal political fault lines and unique needs. 

Look, I'm a commercial litigator, and I'm usually on the defense side, with my client being accused of doing something wrong.  Job 1 is absolutely to figure out if my client actually did something wrong and that there might be some exposure.  You have to know what really happened, or at least what you think probably happened based on the available evidence.  Then, and only then, can you figure out what to do about it, whether that's pushing an early settlement, making changes in your organization, trying to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds, or (if you and your client really believe you're on solid ground) fight like hell. 

I'm certainly no Muir defender--extending Dawkins is reason enough to find a new AD--and while my only knowledge about the softball debacle is what's been shared on this board, it certainly seems like Muir blew this one.  I just don't understand the argument that a previous relationship with a law firm means the law firm's conclusions are untrustworthy.  And frankly, if the goal were, as Mick suggests, to present Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash negative publicity, then they made a right royal mess of it.  We can all agree that the law firm's motivations, among possible others, were to (1) show Stanford that the firm was being thorough and doing an excellent job, so that (2) Stanford hires them again for things.  And those would have been the exact same motivations for a law firm that had never done any work for Stanford in the past.  Any investigation, regardless of who conducted it, would have revealed numerous allegations against the coaching staff and Marcello, numerous statements by players/parents disputing those allegations, numerous statements by players/parents affirming those allegations, and the coaching staff disputing those allegations.  In other words, there was always going to be support in that report for whatever decision Muir decided to make here, depending on which side he chose to believe (or even if he didn't really put much stock in either side, but wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess and start over). 

It's perfectly reasonable to hang this debacle on Muir.  He hasn't exactly covered himself in glory to date.  I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156216#msg156216 date=1455145968]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.
[/quote]

Well, of course.  If figuring out the truth was compromised in any way--i.e., the law firm only spoke to one side of this dispute and ignored the other side--then that's a massive problem.  But my point, and I think garvin's point, was that the existence of a previous relationship--standing by itself--shouldn't impact that.  The bigger concern would be my other point, which is that if this were just providing cover to a decision Muir already wanted to make, in which case the investigation was a sham.  That may have been what happened.  I don't know.  But you gain the trust of clients by being candid with them about what appears to have happened while being constructive about what to do next.  That's what I meant when I said it would be a benefit to have a firm with a previous relationship with Stanford doing the investigation, who can tailor recommendations on how to proceed to what they already know about Stanford's internal political fault lines and unique needs. 

Look, I'm a commercial litigator, and I'm usually on the defense side, with my client being accused of doing something wrong.  Job 1 is absolutely to figure out if my client actually did something wrong and that there might be some exposure.  You have to know what really happened, or at least what you think probably happened based on the available evidence.  Then, and only then, can you figure out what to do about it, whether that's pushing an early settlement, making changes in your organization, trying to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds, or (if you and your client really believe you're on solid ground) fight like hell. 

I'm certainly no Muir defender--extending Dawkins is reason enough to find a new AD--and while my only knowledge about the softball debacle is what's been shared on this board, it certainly seems like Muir blew this one.  I just don't understand the argument that a previous relationship with a law firm means the law firm's conclusions are untrustworthy.  And frankly, if the goal were, as Mick suggests, to present Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash negative publicity, then they made a right royal mess of it.  We can all agree that the law firm's motivations, among possible others, were to (1) show Stanford that the firm was being thorough and doing an excellent job, so that (2) Stanford hires them again for things.  And those would have been the exact same motivations for a law firm that had never done any work for Stanford in the past.  Any investigation, regardless of who conducted it, would have revealed numerous allegations against the coaching staff and Marcello, numerous statements by players/parents disputing those allegations, numerous statements by players/parents affirming those allegations, and the coaching staff disputing those allegations.  In other words, there was always going to be support in that report for whatever decision Muir decided to make here, depending on which side he chose to believe (or even if he didn't really put much stock in either side, but wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess and start over). 

It's perfectly reasonable to hang this debacle on Muir.  He hasn't exactly covered himself in glory to date.  I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it. 

[winflop]

I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it.

It matters because, as you previously stated, Muir doesn't really have anything big to hang his hat on as far as success goes, and keeping an underperforming Dawkins around has dampened his credibility

[winflop]

I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it.

It matters because, as you previously stated, Muir doesn't really have anything big to hang his hat on as far as success goes, and keeping an underperforming Dawkins around has dampened his credibility

[FarmDad.01]

In the wake of Bridgegate, NJ Gov. Krispy Kreme hired a Republican law firm to conduct an "impartial independent investigation." The results were reported by partner Randy Mastro, who used to be Rudy Giuliani's Turk/fixer. Mastro announced, with a straight face, that though his firm had not interviewed several key players, it found no evidence that Chris Christie had even the slightest inkling of the dastardly plot to throttle traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

New Jerseyans didn't buy it. The governor who in 2013 landslid to a second term now has a 59% disapproval rating in his home state.

[FarmDad.01]

In the wake of Bridgegate, NJ Gov. Krispy Kreme hired a Republican law firm to conduct an "impartial independent investigation." The results were reported by partner Randy Mastro, who used to be Rudy Giuliani's Turk/fixer. Mastro announced, with a straight face, that though his firm had not interviewed several key players, it found no evidence that Chris Christie had even the slightest inkling of the dastardly plot to throttle traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

New Jerseyans didn't buy it. The governor who in 2013 landslid to a second term now has a 59% disapproval rating in his home state.

[Mick]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14578.msg156217#msg156217 date=1455146188]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156216#msg156216 date=1455145968]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.
[/quote]

Well, of course.  If figuring out the truth was compromised in any way--i.e., the law firm only spoke to one side of this dispute and ignored the other side--then that's a massive problem.  But my point, and I think garvin's point, was that the existence of a previous relationship--standing by itself--shouldn't impact that.  The bigger concern would be my other point, which is that if this were just providing cover to a decision Muir already wanted to make, in which case the investigation was a sham.  That may have been what happened.  I don't know.  But you gain the trust of clients by being candid with them about what appears to have happened while being constructive about what to do next.  That's what I meant when I said it would be a benefit to have a firm with a previous relationship with Stanford doing the investigation, who can tailor recommendations on how to proceed to what they already know about Stanford's internal political fault lines and unique needs. 

Look, I'm a commercial litigator, and I'm usually on the defense side, with my client being accused of doing something wrong.  Job 1 is absolutely to figure out if my client actually did something wrong and that there might be some exposure.  You have to know what really happened, or at least what you think probably happened based on the available evidence.  Then, and only then, can you figure out what to do about it, whether that's pushing an early settlement, making changes in your organization, trying to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds, or (if you and your client really believe you're on solid ground) fight like hell. 

I'm certainly no Muir defender--extending Dawkins is reason enough to find a new AD--and while my only knowledge about the softball debacle is what's been shared on this board, it certainly seems like Muir blew this one.  I just don't understand the argument that a previous relationship with a law firm means the law firm's conclusions are untrustworthy.  And frankly, if the goal were, as Mick suggests, to present Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash negative publicity, then they made a right royal mess of it.  We can all agree that the law firm's motivations, among possible others, were to (1) show Stanford that the firm was being thorough and doing an excellent job, so that (2) Stanford hires them again for things.  And those would have been the exact same motivations for a law firm that had never done any work for Stanford in the past.  Any investigation, regardless of who conducted it, would have revealed numerous allegations against the coaching staff and Marcello, numerous statements by players/parents disputing those allegations, numerous statements by players/parents affirming those allegations, and the coaching staff disputing those allegations.  In other words, there was always going to be support in that report for whatever decision Muir decided to make here, depending on which side he chose to believe (or even if he didn't really put much stock in either side, but wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess and start over). 

It's perfectly reasonable to hang this debacle on Muir.  He hasn't exactly covered himself in glory to date.  I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it.
[/quote]

Let me try to explain it this way: Stanford, in essence, was investigating itself, with multiple parties at conflict.  Think of a financial audit...the accounting firm cannot be beholden to the client, otherwise, you get...well...Enron.  You can't have a client impact an investigation other than to frame the story, and you certainly can't have a client determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation, which ColoradoTree appeared to suggest:

[/In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.

An independent report must be independent and should appear to be independent.  It is delivered privately to the client.  The client makes decisions based upon the investigation that follow the law.  The concern would be whether the client determined the outcome or indicated the desired outcome prior to the investigation.  A firm that does a significant  amount of business with a client may be considered in compromise.  Auditing firms, for example, cannot render an opinion on financial statements if either (a) the client's outstanding receivable is too high or (b) too high a percentage of the firm's fees are through that single client.  And an audit is essentially an independent investigation of the financial statements.

If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.

I think it gives enough people pause, that it's a concern.  Let me take this one step further: would it concern you if the attorney who conducted the investigation or oversaw the investigation was a member of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University?

[Mick]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14578.msg156217#msg156217 date=1455146188]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156216#msg156216 date=1455145968]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156165#msg156165 date=1455124080]
Since we're on this subject, I've always been puzzled by the complaint that the softball investigation was carried out by a law firm that does other business with the University. Why is that a problem? For that matter, why is an outside or independent investigation necessary at all? Should Idiotface have been retained until an independent fact-finding commission looked into the situation? Bosses hire and fire people all the time. If they can't be trusted to do so, perhaps they shouldn't be bosses.

In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.  So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.  If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.
[/quote]

I disagree. To me the investigation's responsibility is to the truth, however the school's reputation might or might not suffer.
[/quote]

Well, of course.  If figuring out the truth was compromised in any way--i.e., the law firm only spoke to one side of this dispute and ignored the other side--then that's a massive problem.  But my point, and I think garvin's point, was that the existence of a previous relationship--standing by itself--shouldn't impact that.  The bigger concern would be my other point, which is that if this were just providing cover to a decision Muir already wanted to make, in which case the investigation was a sham.  That may have been what happened.  I don't know.  But you gain the trust of clients by being candid with them about what appears to have happened while being constructive about what to do next.  That's what I meant when I said it would be a benefit to have a firm with a previous relationship with Stanford doing the investigation, who can tailor recommendations on how to proceed to what they already know about Stanford's internal political fault lines and unique needs. 

Look, I'm a commercial litigator, and I'm usually on the defense side, with my client being accused of doing something wrong.  Job 1 is absolutely to figure out if my client actually did something wrong and that there might be some exposure.  You have to know what really happened, or at least what you think probably happened based on the available evidence.  Then, and only then, can you figure out what to do about it, whether that's pushing an early settlement, making changes in your organization, trying to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds, or (if you and your client really believe you're on solid ground) fight like hell. 

I'm certainly no Muir defender--extending Dawkins is reason enough to find a new AD--and while my only knowledge about the softball debacle is what's been shared on this board, it certainly seems like Muir blew this one.  I just don't understand the argument that a previous relationship with a law firm means the law firm's conclusions are untrustworthy.  And frankly, if the goal were, as Mick suggests, to present Stanford in the best possible light and whitewash negative publicity, then they made a right royal mess of it.  We can all agree that the law firm's motivations, among possible others, were to (1) show Stanford that the firm was being thorough and doing an excellent job, so that (2) Stanford hires them again for things.  And those would have been the exact same motivations for a law firm that had never done any work for Stanford in the past.  Any investigation, regardless of who conducted it, would have revealed numerous allegations against the coaching staff and Marcello, numerous statements by players/parents disputing those allegations, numerous statements by players/parents affirming those allegations, and the coaching staff disputing those allegations.  In other words, there was always going to be support in that report for whatever decision Muir decided to make here, depending on which side he chose to believe (or even if he didn't really put much stock in either side, but wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess and start over). 

It's perfectly reasonable to hang this debacle on Muir.  He hasn't exactly covered himself in glory to date.  I just don't see why the prior relationship between Stanford and the law firm has anything to do with it.
[/quote]

Let me try to explain it this way: Stanford, in essence, was investigating itself, with multiple parties at conflict.  Think of a financial audit...the accounting firm cannot be beholden to the client, otherwise, you get...well...Enron.  You can't have a client impact an investigation other than to frame the story, and you certainly can't have a client determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation, which ColoradoTree appeared to suggest:

[/In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.

An independent report must be independent and should appear to be independent.  It is delivered privately to the client.  The client makes decisions based upon the investigation that follow the law.  The concern would be whether the client determined the outcome or indicated the desired outcome prior to the investigation.  A firm that does a significant  amount of business with a client may be considered in compromise.  Auditing firms, for example, cannot render an opinion on financial statements if either (a) the client's outstanding receivable is too high or (b) too high a percentage of the firm's fees are through that single client.  And an audit is essentially an independent investigation of the financial statements.

If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.

I think it gives enough people pause, that it's a concern.  Let me take this one step further: would it concern you if the attorney who conducted the investigation or oversaw the investigation was a member of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University?

[winflop]

Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

The questions I have re the attorneys:
- how much of the data did they have to work with?  Muir NEVER met with the players who supported the coach (or their parents), so they didn't have any of that input.  I don't care who you hire, if you aren't given a complete picture you can't fairly evaluate.
- did the attorneys push back on Muir to get that data, and if not why not?  Counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the investigation was complete and thorough.  Clearly it was not.  It exposes the University and the attorneys to a countersuit.  Thankfully Rittman appears to just want this to be over and done with and move on with his career.  He knows how good a coach he is - he will find success somewhere else.
- did the attorneys advise Muir to use a firm without existing ties to the University to remove any appearance of bias?  A good lawyer would do that for a client, especially one with whom they have a long-standing relationship.  That's being a good trusted advisor.

I'm starting to think this is as much about the attorneys as it is about Muir, but ultimately Muir is responsible.  He botched the investigation, and he hired the attorneys.

And if he doesn't fire Dawkins after a sub-.500 season then Etch needs to think about showing him the door.

[winflop]

Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

The questions I have re the attorneys:
- how much of the data did they have to work with?  Muir NEVER met with the players who supported the coach (or their parents), so they didn't have any of that input.  I don't care who you hire, if you aren't given a complete picture you can't fairly evaluate.
- did the attorneys push back on Muir to get that data, and if not why not?  Counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the investigation was complete and thorough.  Clearly it was not.  It exposes the University and the attorneys to a countersuit.  Thankfully Rittman appears to just want this to be over and done with and move on with his career.  He knows how good a coach he is - he will find success somewhere else.
- did the attorneys advise Muir to use a firm without existing ties to the University to remove any appearance of bias?  A good lawyer would do that for a client, especially one with whom they have a long-standing relationship.  That's being a good trusted advisor.

I'm starting to think this is as much about the attorneys as it is about Muir, but ultimately Muir is responsible.  He botched the investigation, and he hired the attorneys.

And if he doesn't fire Dawkins after a sub-.500 season then Etch needs to think about showing him the door.

[ColoradoTree]

Let me try to explain it this way: Stanford, in essence, was investigating itself, with multiple parties at conflict.  Think of a financial audit...the accounting firm cannot be beholden to the client, otherwise, you get...well...Enron.  You can't have a client impact an investigation other than to frame the story, and you certainly can't have a client determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation, which ColoradoTree appeared to suggest:

[/In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.

An independent report must be independent and should appear to be independent.  It is delivered privately to the client.  The client makes decisions based upon the investigation that follow the law.  The concern would be whether the client determined the outcome or indicated the desired outcome prior to the investigation.  A firm that does a significant  amount of business with a client may be considered in compromise.  Auditing firms, for example, cannot render an opinion on financial statements if either (a) the client's outstanding receivable is too high or (b) too high a percentage of the firm's fees are through that single client.  And an audit is essentially an independent investigation of the financial statements.

If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.

I think it gives enough people pause, that it's a concern.  Let me take this one step further: would it concern you if the attorney who conducted the investigation or oversaw the investigation was a member of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University?

A few points here:

1. I still don't understand why you think it's a problem that a law firm Stanford hired would have the dual incentives of (a) getting it right and (b) suggesting possible solutions that would harm Stanford the least.  Let's assume Stanford hired a firm they had never worked with before.  That new firm would have the exact same incentives, since they'd want Stanford to hire them in the future, too. 

2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report?  It seems like there's a lot of speculation about what's in there or who was or wasn't interviewed as part of it.  That's why I've tried to confine my comments to whether a preexisting relationship between the law firm and Stanford--standing alone--presented a concern.  We apparently know how the investigation/report has been described by Muir (as independent, it seems), but we don't appear to know what the lawyers' assignment was.  Was it "find out the truth to this, spare no expense" or was it "there are some allegations swirling, so can you folks talk to these specific people and summarize their stories so I can make a decision" or something else?  Muir may have called this an independent investigation, but that doesn't mean that the lawyers ever considered it one or called it one. 

3. Of course Stanford was effectively investigating itself.  That's what happens in internal investigations.  But I fail to see the logical connection between (a) having done legal work for the University in the past, and (b) being inclined to support a group of softball student-athletes and parents against another group of softball student-athletes and parents. 

4.  I never suggested that it was a positive thing for a "client [to] determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation."  My words that you quoted in support for that conclusion simply don't say that.  Instead, they're another way of saying what I've said elsewhere: any good attorney is going to try to figure out what actually happened and then give recommendations on how to proceed in the best interests of the client.  As I've also said elsewhere in this thread, if Muir intentionally narrowed the scope of the investigation in order to get back something that gave him cover to make a decision he already wanted to make, then that's a bad thing, not a good thing, and Muir should be fired for it.  Whether it also means the attorneys did something wrong depends on what they were asked to do and what they understood their role to be.  (See point 2 above.)  If the attorneys were asked to do a far-reaching investigation and failed to do one, then that's on them.  If they were given a more limited assignment and did it, then it's not. 

5.  The possible "bias" I noted the law firm might have--protecting Stanford's image and interests--does not seem to have come into play here, given the sh*t show that has ensued.  The outrage you and others feel pretty clearly shows that this did not go well, and that Stanford's image has been tarnished, at least in the softball community.  Thus, I see no causal link between whatever "bias" might have been present and the apparent harm that ensued. 

6.  As garvin noted, firing Rittman is a University decision entrusted to Muir that shouldn't necessarily need an independent investigation.  And frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more close oversight over Muir, so to answer your question, I wouldn't have a problem with a member of the Board of Trustees participating in the investigation.  It would show me that the University took this seriously.  But I also trust that our Trustees would have the best interests of the University in mind, and that they would also understand that the University is always best-served by figuring out the truth first.  Of course, having a University leader involved would necessarily make it an internal rather than an outside investigation, but again, I trust the University as a whole to try and do the right thing. 

7.  I think there's a conflation here between "Muir" and "the University" when it comes to the firm's prior work.  Do we know what the prior work was?  Did it involve the athletic department?  If this law firm has been acting like a "fixer" for Muir for several years, then that obviously puts things in a different light, and makes any investigation suspect.  If they handed some corporate transactional or patent prosecution work, however, or even defended the University in employment litigation, then I stick with my original conclusion that the prior relationship isn't a problem. 

8.  I am in no way, shape, or form defending Muir.  I think his mismanagement of the men's basketball program alone is sufficient grounds to find someone new.  From what I understand about this softball situation, he's messed it up royally.  He should absolutely be fired.  But that conclusion doesn't mean that the law firm did anything wrong.  We just don't know enough right now to reach a conclusion one way or the other, which is why I'm uncomfortable impugning the integrity of other lawyers without any evidence that they either (a) intentionally did a slipshod investigation to do what they think Muir wanted, or (b) conspired with Muir to create a defensible report that they knew was one-sided. 

[ColoradoTree]

Let me try to explain it this way: Stanford, in essence, was investigating itself, with multiple parties at conflict.  Think of a financial audit...the accounting firm cannot be beholden to the client, otherwise, you get...well...Enron.  You can't have a client impact an investigation other than to frame the story, and you certainly can't have a client determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation, which ColoradoTree appeared to suggest:

[/In this situation, I could see it as a positive that the firm had a prior relationship with Stanford.  To the extent there's any bias, it's to do the thing that helps Stanford the most and to ensure the University is presented in the best possible light.So, not only is there the investigative piece--figuring out what really happened--the conclusions will necessarily be colored by a desire to make sure a situation does as little damage to the school's reputation as possible.  That, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.

An independent report must be independent and should appear to be independent.  It is delivered privately to the client.  The client makes decisions based upon the investigation that follow the law.  The concern would be whether the client determined the outcome or indicated the desired outcome prior to the investigation.  A firm that does a significant  amount of business with a client may be considered in compromise.  Auditing firms, for example, cannot render an opinion on financial statements if either (a) the client's outstanding receivable is too high or (b) too high a percentage of the firm's fees are through that single client.  And an audit is essentially an independent investigation of the financial statements.

If the firm's standard position is to recommend a coaching change to "get rid of the issue," however, then that would be a problem.  If the firm were hired to simply provide cover to a decision Muir had already made, then that's also a problem.  But I fully agree that the preexisting relationship alone doesn't give me any heartburn at all.

I think it gives enough people pause, that it's a concern.  Let me take this one step further: would it concern you if the attorney who conducted the investigation or oversaw the investigation was a member of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University?

A few points here:

1. I still don't understand why you think it's a problem that a law firm Stanford hired would have the dual incentives of (a) getting it right and (b) suggesting possible solutions that would harm Stanford the least.  Let's assume Stanford hired a firm they had never worked with before.  That new firm would have the exact same incentives, since they'd want Stanford to hire them in the future, too. 

2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report?  It seems like there's a lot of speculation about what's in there or who was or wasn't interviewed as part of it.  That's why I've tried to confine my comments to whether a preexisting relationship between the law firm and Stanford--standing alone--presented a concern.  We apparently know how the investigation/report has been described by Muir (as independent, it seems), but we don't appear to know what the lawyers' assignment was.  Was it "find out the truth to this, spare no expense" or was it "there are some allegations swirling, so can you folks talk to these specific people and summarize their stories so I can make a decision" or something else?  Muir may have called this an independent investigation, but that doesn't mean that the lawyers ever considered it one or called it one. 

3. Of course Stanford was effectively investigating itself.  That's what happens in internal investigations.  But I fail to see the logical connection between (a) having done legal work for the University in the past, and (b) being inclined to support a group of softball student-athletes and parents against another group of softball student-athletes and parents. 

4.  I never suggested that it was a positive thing for a "client [to] determine the outcome of a putatively independent investigation."  My words that you quoted in support for that conclusion simply don't say that.  Instead, they're another way of saying what I've said elsewhere: any good attorney is going to try to figure out what actually happened and then give recommendations on how to proceed in the best interests of the client.  As I've also said elsewhere in this thread, if Muir intentionally narrowed the scope of the investigation in order to get back something that gave him cover to make a decision he already wanted to make, then that's a bad thing, not a good thing, and Muir should be fired for it.  Whether it also means the attorneys did something wrong depends on what they were asked to do and what they understood their role to be.  (See point 2 above.)  If the attorneys were asked to do a far-reaching investigation and failed to do one, then that's on them.  If they were given a more limited assignment and did it, then it's not. 

5.  The possible "bias" I noted the law firm might have--protecting Stanford's image and interests--does not seem to have come into play here, given the sh*t show that has ensued.  The outrage you and others feel pretty clearly shows that this did not go well, and that Stanford's image has been tarnished, at least in the softball community.  Thus, I see no causal link between whatever "bias" might have been present and the apparent harm that ensued. 

6.  As garvin noted, firing Rittman is a University decision entrusted to Muir that shouldn't necessarily need an independent investigation.  And frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more close oversight over Muir, so to answer your question, I wouldn't have a problem with a member of the Board of Trustees participating in the investigation.  It would show me that the University took this seriously.  But I also trust that our Trustees would have the best interests of the University in mind, and that they would also understand that the University is always best-served by figuring out the truth first.  Of course, having a University leader involved would necessarily make it an internal rather than an outside investigation, but again, I trust the University as a whole to try and do the right thing. 

7.  I think there's a conflation here between "Muir" and "the University" when it comes to the firm's prior work.  Do we know what the prior work was?  Did it involve the athletic department?  If this law firm has been acting like a "fixer" for Muir for several years, then that obviously puts things in a different light, and makes any investigation suspect.  If they handed some corporate transactional or patent prosecution work, however, or even defended the University in employment litigation, then I stick with my original conclusion that the prior relationship isn't a problem. 

8.  I am in no way, shape, or form defending Muir.  I think his mismanagement of the men's basketball program alone is sufficient grounds to find someone new.  From what I understand about this softball situation, he's messed it up royally.  He should absolutely be fired.  But that conclusion doesn't mean that the law firm did anything wrong.  We just don't know enough right now to reach a conclusion one way or the other, which is why I'm uncomfortable impugning the integrity of other lawyers without any evidence that they either (a) intentionally did a slipshod investigation to do what they think Muir wanted, or (b) conspired with Muir to create a defensible report that they knew was one-sided. 

[ColoradoTree]

Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

Amen. 

[ColoradoTree]

Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

Amen. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156365#msg156365 date=1455293630]
Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

The questions I have re the attorneys:
- how much of the data did they have to work with?  Muir NEVER met with the players who supported the coach (or their parents), so they didn't have any of that input.  I don't care who you hire, if you aren't given a complete picture you can't fairly evaluate.
- did the attorneys push back on Muir to get that data, and if not why not?  Counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the investigation was complete and thorough.  Clearly it was not.  It exposes the University and the attorneys to a countersuit.  Thankfully Rittman appears to just want this to be over and done with and move on with his career.  He knows how good a coach he is - he will find success somewhere else.
- did the attorneys advise Muir to use a firm without existing ties to the University to remove any appearance of bias?  A good lawyer would do that for a client, especially one with whom they have a long-standing relationship.  That's being a good trusted advisor.

I'm starting to think this is as much about the attorneys as it is about Muir, but ultimately Muir is responsible.  He botched the investigation, and he hired the attorneys.

And if he doesn't fire Dawkins after a sub-.500 season then Etch needs to think about showing him the door.
[/quote]

I think it's fair to wonder whether the law firm interviewed people that Muir didn't, whether they asked to interview people on the other side of the issue, whether they were denied (either by Muir or by the other students/parents themselves), and whether they noted in the report that their conclusions lack the benefit of having talked to everybody concerned (if they didn't talk to everybody concerned).  I don't think we know that stuff right now, so I'm declining to assume one way or the other until we know more. 

As to whether Muir hired the attorneys, though, I don't think that's how it would work.  Usually with large institutions like Stanford, outside attorneys are hired by in-house attorneys, which at Stanford would be the Office of the General Counsel.  I'm sure the law firm would have talked to Muir, but I should think it's outside his bailiwick to retain outside counsel for a University matter.  In the usual course, I would expect Muir to call the Provost and OGC and say there's a potential problem that needs further investigation and legal guidance, and for the OGC to find a law firm that has experience with Title IX matters to (1) interview the principal parties, (2) analyze whether the allegations, if true, would violate any laws or regulations, and (3) assess the credibility of various witnesses and whether the firm believes the University faces exposure.  Knowing that is what makes me hesitate to conclude that the law firm conspired with Muir to do a hatchet job on Rittman.  Too many layers of bureaucracy.  Now, it seems entirely possible to me that after the firm did its investigation, Muir and the OGC got together, threw up their hands, and said they didn't know how a potential Title IX complaint would turn out, and decided that the University was better off firing Rittman over facing the potential PR backlash.  In other words, if the University was going to be hammered by someone either way, they'd probably prefer being accused of being too draconian on punishing the leadership of a team where there were allegations of sexual harassment and playing favorites rather than being accused of tolerating an environment where multiple players said there was harassment going on.  I get that.  It may be disloyal, but it's rational.  Then again, it's also not what we've been discussing, which is whether the law firm's prior relationship with Stanford compromised its investigation. 

Also, Stanford is a massive institution that likely has hundreds of open transactional and litigation matters open at any given time, which would involve dozens of outside law firms.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of the major Bay Area firms (or national firms with Bay Area offices) have past or ongoing client relationships with Stanford or are unable to represent Stanford because of conflicts with other firm clients.  Heck, big companies often have "preferred provider" lists with hundreds of law firms on them that regularly get legal work thrown their way, depending on where, what, and how large the work is.  Just how it works. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14578.msg156365#msg156365 date=1455293630]
Mick, what you're saying would make a lot more sense to me if the outcome of the investigation had been to protect Stanford's institutional interests at the expense of aggreived students. Instead, it was the opposite: The coach got fired, the mutineers were upheld.

If Stanford could fire a tenured professor like Bruce Franklin without an outside investigation, I don't see why it can't fire a softball coach. That's not to say I think the firing was a good idea or even that it was handled well, merely that I don't believe it was compromised by the fact that the attorneys had done other work for Stanford.

The questions I have re the attorneys:
- how much of the data did they have to work with?  Muir NEVER met with the players who supported the coach (or their parents), so they didn't have any of that input.  I don't care who you hire, if you aren't given a complete picture you can't fairly evaluate.
- did the attorneys push back on Muir to get that data, and if not why not?  Counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the investigation was complete and thorough.  Clearly it was not.  It exposes the University and the attorneys to a countersuit.  Thankfully Rittman appears to just want this to be over and done with and move on with his career.  He knows how good a coach he is - he will find success somewhere else.
- did the attorneys advise Muir to use a firm without existing ties to the University to remove any appearance of bias?  A good lawyer would do that for a client, especially one with whom they have a long-standing relationship.  That's being a good trusted advisor.

I'm starting to think this is as much about the attorneys as it is about Muir, but ultimately Muir is responsible.  He botched the investigation, and he hired the attorneys.

And if he doesn't fire Dawkins after a sub-.500 season then Etch needs to think about showing him the door.
[/quote]

I think it's fair to wonder whether the law firm interviewed people that Muir didn't, whether they asked to interview people on the other side of the issue, whether they were denied (either by Muir or by the other students/parents themselves), and whether they noted in the report that their conclusions lack the benefit of having talked to everybody concerned (if they didn't talk to everybody concerned).  I don't think we know that stuff right now, so I'm declining to assume one way or the other until we know more. 

As to whether Muir hired the attorneys, though, I don't think that's how it would work.  Usually with large institutions like Stanford, outside attorneys are hired by in-house attorneys, which at Stanford would be the Office of the General Counsel.  I'm sure the law firm would have talked to Muir, but I should think it's outside his bailiwick to retain outside counsel for a University matter.  In the usual course, I would expect Muir to call the Provost and OGC and say there's a potential problem that needs further investigation and legal guidance, and for the OGC to find a law firm that has experience with Title IX matters to (1) interview the principal parties, (2) analyze whether the allegations, if true, would violate any laws or regulations, and (3) assess the credibility of various witnesses and whether the firm believes the University faces exposure.  Knowing that is what makes me hesitate to conclude that the law firm conspired with Muir to do a hatchet job on Rittman.  Too many layers of bureaucracy.  Now, it seems entirely possible to me that after the firm did its investigation, Muir and the OGC got together, threw up their hands, and said they didn't know how a potential Title IX complaint would turn out, and decided that the University was better off firing Rittman over facing the potential PR backlash.  In other words, if the University was going to be hammered by someone either way, they'd probably prefer being accused of being too draconian on punishing the leadership of a team where there were allegations of sexual harassment and playing favorites rather than being accused of tolerating an environment where multiple players said there was harassment going on.  I get that.  It may be disloyal, but it's rational.  Then again, it's also not what we've been discussing, which is whether the law firm's prior relationship with Stanford compromised its investigation. 

Also, Stanford is a massive institution that likely has hundreds of open transactional and litigation matters open at any given time, which would involve dozens of outside law firms.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of the major Bay Area firms (or national firms with Bay Area offices) have past or ongoing client relationships with Stanford or are unable to represent Stanford because of conflicts with other firm clients.  Heck, big companies often have "preferred provider" lists with hundreds of law firms on them that regularly get legal work thrown their way, depending on where, what, and how large the work is.  Just how it works. 

[CTcard]

2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report? 

For the most part that seems to be a resounding "no" - though perhaps some here have more direct knowledge than they are stating.

A few things.

As far as I can tell, the law firm was hired to do a Title IX investigation of the trainer Marcello. The discussion here seems to imply that this investigation concerned the general state of affairs on the softball team and the future of Rittman, which seems to not be the case (though it is true that there is a relation between the two). My understanding is that under normal circumstances, such investigations are carried out by Stanford's Title IX officer herself (Catherine Criswell). Hiring an outside attorney is at least one step more neutral/disinterested than that usual procedure would be.

Details of the investigation into the general situation of the softball team are almost entirely unknown via public press accounts.

There doesn't seem to be much consideration here that neither Stanford nor the group of players who were unhappy have spoken to the press. The articles, therefore, are almost exclusively the view of those who are upset Rittman is gone.

---------
Personally, I don't feel like I have nearly enough information to have a real opinion on the performance of Muir in this particular situation. It's pretty easy to imagine it was anything from venal to incompetent to the only thing possible in the presence of a bad situation.
The one thing that is pretty clear is that it was a bad situation - no team becomes this divided when things are working properly.

[CTcard]

2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report? 

For the most part that seems to be a resounding "no" - though perhaps some here have more direct knowledge than they are stating.

A few things.

As far as I can tell, the law firm was hired to do a Title IX investigation of the trainer Marcello. The discussion here seems to imply that this investigation concerned the general state of affairs on the softball team and the future of Rittman, which seems to not be the case (though it is true that there is a relation between the two). My understanding is that under normal circumstances, such investigations are carried out by Stanford's Title IX officer herself (Catherine Criswell). Hiring an outside attorney is at least one step more neutral/disinterested than that usual procedure would be.

Details of the investigation into the general situation of the softball team are almost entirely unknown via public press accounts.

There doesn't seem to be much consideration here that neither Stanford nor the group of players who were unhappy have spoken to the press. The articles, therefore, are almost exclusively the view of those who are upset Rittman is gone.

---------
Personally, I don't feel like I have nearly enough information to have a real opinion on the performance of Muir in this particular situation. It's pretty easy to imagine it was anything from venal to incompetent to the only thing possible in the presence of a bad situation.
The one thing that is pretty clear is that it was a bad situation - no team becomes this divided when things are working properly.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156379#msg156379 date=1455303862]
2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report? 

For the most part that seems to be a resounding "no" - though perhaps some here have more direct knowledge than they are stating.

A few things.

As far as I can tell, the law firm was hired to do a Title IX investigation of the trainer Marcello. The discussion here seems to imply that this investigation concerned the general state of affairs on the softball team and the future of Rittman, which seems to not be the case (though it is true that there is a relation between the two). My understanding is that under normal circumstances, such investigations are carried out by Stanford's Title IX officer herself (Catherine Criswell). Hiring an outside attorney is at least one step more neutral/disinterested than that usual procedure would be.

Details of the investigation into the general situation of the softball team are almost entirely unknown via public press accounts.

There doesn't seem to be much consideration here that neither Stanford nor the group of players who were unhappy have spoken to the press. The articles, therefore, are almost exclusively the view of those who are upset Rittman is gone.

---------
Personally, I don't feel like I have nearly enough information to have a real opinion on the performance of Muir in this particular situation. It's pretty easy to imagine it was anything from venal to incompetent to the only thing possible in the presence of a bad situation.
The one thing that is pretty clear is that it was a bad situation - no team becomes this divided when things are working properly.
[/quote]

Thanks, CTcard.  That all makes sense to me. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14578.msg156379#msg156379 date=1455303862]
2. Does anyone here know anything about what the investigation found or what's in the report? 

For the most part that seems to be a resounding "no" - though perhaps some here have more direct knowledge than they are stating.

A few things.

As far as I can tell, the law firm was hired to do a Title IX investigation of the trainer Marcello. The discussion here seems to imply that this investigation concerned the general state of affairs on the softball team and the future of Rittman, which seems to not be the case (though it is true that there is a relation between the two). My understanding is that under normal circumstances, such investigations are carried out by Stanford's Title IX officer herself (Catherine Criswell). Hiring an outside attorney is at least one step more neutral/disinterested than that usual procedure would be.

Details of the investigation into the general situation of the softball team are almost entirely unknown via public press accounts.

There doesn't seem to be much consideration here that neither Stanford nor the group of players who were unhappy have spoken to the press. The articles, therefore, are almost exclusively the view of those who are upset Rittman is gone.

---------
Personally, I don't feel like I have nearly enough information to have a real opinion on the performance of Muir in this particular situation. It's pretty easy to imagine it was anything from venal to incompetent to the only thing possible in the presence of a bad situation.
The one thing that is pretty clear is that it was a bad situation - no team becomes this divided when things are working properly.
[/quote]

Thanks, CTcard.  That all makes sense to me.