Right, I'm not saying "this is cut and dried -wrong-" but that it does raise what I feel are valid questions about the influences, both conscious and subconscious that surround this whole situation.

Like you say, Thiel could not direct the firm to change strategy, but on the other hand (and I realize that this may come across as an accusation where one isn't intended), no doubt Thiel is talking to the law firm, and directing multiple people to this particular firm, and given that he has been vocal about his goals, it's also possible that such things creep in to decision making processes.

Bollea and Thiel's interests may also be perfectly aligned.

>but that it does raise what I feel are valid questions..

I totally agree, and the Bars that regulate lawyers agree. Not just valid, but serious enough issues for the Bars to create Rules to try to guide lawyers when confronted with these exact scenarios. Notwithstanding the Rules and severe punishments, they can still be broken, and as you suggest violations can be intentional and unintentional only clouding these ethical issues.

Just don't under estimate how archaic the Bars Rules are in practice. For example, the power of Admonishment wherein lawyers are dragged in front of groups of their peers to be publicly ridiculed, a record of the event is made and distributed among the community. Even if not disbarred, punishment is not only humiliating but can potentially ruin a career anyhow.

>Bollea and Thiel's interests may also be perfectly aligned.

I haven't confirmed, but I think the gist is that separate and apart from the firm's representation of Bollea, the firm represents Thiel in various unrelated legal matters. If true, coincidentally we know that at minimum Bollea and Thiel don't have adverse interests[1]. Moreover, before a firm represents a client (Bollea) they must perform a conflict check against all existing clients, which coincidentally would have included the payer, Thiel.

Funny enough I don't think such a conflict check is required of someone who pays the lawyer for another (Thiel if he wasn't a client of the firm) and such a rule would seem to make sense. Though it would be burdensome in the instance of crowdsourcing lawsuits which will probably begin to become more of a thing. It would also be a strange analysis in the criminal justice context where the tax payer is paying the judge, the prosecutor and the defense (in the instance of public defender cases), or even insurance cases where opposing parties are both insured by the same company (e.g. my insurance company is representing me and paying for my litigation, and they are also representing and paying the opposing litigation...a conflict).

[1] FL Rule: https://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/2E30A65D3638C...

What if Thiel simply pays Bollea not to settle?

FTA: "He would not say whether he had compensated any of the people, including Mr. Bollea, which could raise questions in an appeal."

It's Bollea's rights that would be violated, so he's the one to decide such. I highly doubt he will given the circumstances.

That's why I can't take seriously anyone other than him suggesting such.

Other people get to 'decide' at appeal time: I were the judge / on a jury on a case were the complainant was tactically dropping charges with the aim of bankrupting the other party rather than seeking justice, I'd probably decide against them. I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

You are misunderstanding the system, I think. If Bollea can win the case, and that judgment would bankrupt Gawker, then under our legal system Bollea has the right to bankrupt them. He also has the right to settle with them if he finds an offer they make advantageous. But that is completely up to him.

Whatever he chooses, for whatever reasons he chooses, is justice. By definition. To be honest, if anything is a perversion of justice, it's a settlement. Because a settlement prevents a verdict from ever being reached and the legal 'truth' of the situation from ever being found.

> I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

Its major function, crudely, is to prevent Hulk Hogan from visiting Nick Denton in character.

It isn't to prevent the pursuit of revenge. It is to prevent violence and vendetta by having a neutral third party arbitrate. The pursuit of revenge for wrongs committed is the notion and motivation behind the elaborate social institution we call justice.

No, the only person with a cause of action here is Bolea himself. Until and unless he asserts that something happened which violated his rights, the entire argument is bogus.

He is the only one who can decide that his lawyer somehow wronged him here. The question is simply not before the court. They decide the arguments presented to them, they can't simply invent one to decide. And Bolea is the only person who can make such an argument here.

Also, it's going to be hard to argue that his lawyers bungled things when he won a huge pile of money.

"Also, it's going to be hard to argue that his lawyers bungled things when he won a huge pile of money."

And then made a decision that meant that in all likelihood he will see either none of, or a tiny fraction of that money, when he could have seen nearly all or all of it by virtue of a liability insurance pay out.

That depends on the bankruptcy court. Maybe he has enough money and is happier this way? Like I said, anyone other than Bolea arguing this is full of crap. He's the only one who gets to decide what is or is not in his interests.

Until and unless Bolea says otherwise, the uninformed speculation to the contrary is simply absurd.