Betting on Boies

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Betting on Boies Gore has met his match.

By David B. Hill, director of Hill Research Consultants, a political polling and strategy firm based in Texas. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Among Hill's recent clients are Michigan Gov. John Engler, Indiana congressman Steve Buyer, and the successful campaign to defeat the statewide anti-growth amendment in Colorado.

Al Gore has spent the better part of the 2000 Campaign claiming to champion the cause of victims. Ironically, his unprecedented effort to litigate his way to victory is likely to seal his reputation as one of the greatest victims of trial-lawyer manipulation in American political and legal history.

David Boies, omnipresent defender of the vice president's risky post-election vote-counting scheme, has an agenda much more self-serving than Gore himself may recognize. As a former Kennedy staffer, voting-rights activist, and longtime Democrat loyalist and contributor, Boies is likely seen by Gore as a brainy, Microsoft-busting legal eagle, who has brought his skills to the table to serve high moral purposes.

Yet the unquestioned legal genius Boies possesses must surely inform him that Gore's prospects in the courtroom are much lower than the 50-50 odds the Democrat candidate laid on himself during a Today show interview Wednesday. Why does Boies continue to encourage Gore to keep bidding away his reputation in this high-stakes electoral crapshoot?

It's possible he's simply an idealistic liberal who has been blinded by partisanship to the reality of the situation. But a closer scrutiny of his career suggests that David Boies is seldom blinded by any emotions--except perhaps for greed and the thrill of courtroom manipulations.

To understand Boies' real motivation in urging Gore forward, you have to understand his business plan. In just over three years, he has managed to build a powerhouse litigation machine that has harvested previously unimagined wealth. A 30-year veteran of a respected Wall Street law firm, in 1997 Boies walked away from his annual $2 million-plus dollar partnership to hunt even more lucrative courtroom game.

Like most self-promoting trial lawyers, Boies has taken low-paying, but high-profile cases to attract notoriety. The Microsoft case — where much was made about his willingness to accept minimal government wages — is a classic example. What too few people seem to appreciate is that every minute of face-time Boies spends humiliating the world's richest man (or Katherine Harris) on national television brings him one step closer to establishing himself as the "Johnnie Cochran of Torts"--and thus perfectly positioned to bag countless big money cases back at the home office.

How much is enough? His house is already so big that his wife once lost one of their kids in it; their temperature-controlled basement is home to a 5,000-bottle wine collection worth more than $1 million dollars. Yet Boies continues to pursue mammoth lawsuits — targeting banks, casinos, health insurers, Hollywood agents, and video-poker game manufacturers.

Still not satisfied? Try this clever way to bequeath vast sums of wealth to your heirs without paying federal estate taxes — all four adult children from Boies' two previous marriages are lawyers, and three of them have joined his firm — thus benefiting royally from the downpour of dollars generated by their rainmaker dad.

Even if Boies knows the odds for Gore's success in legal challenges are 20 percent or less, he keeps forging ahead. And why not? As a self-acknowledged fan of Las Vegas gambling he's getting better odds in the swamps of Florida than he could ever get in the Nevada desert.

Besides, every trial lawyer — not just Boies — has an enormous stake in de-legitimizing a Bush presidency. The governor's reputation on tort reform in Texas is legend, and he'll likely champion and sign much-needed reforms of product liability and medical malpractice law that have long been stymied by the Clinton administration.

The real question that remains is why a world-wise politician like Al Gore can't see how he is being used and manipulated for someone else's gain. Doesn't he realize that Boies will be more famous, and in even greater demand regardless of the outcome — while Gore himself will go down in history as a litigious spoilsport and loser?

This is where you have to really look closely at Boies to understand what is happening. He is the master of deception. He wears cheap suits bought at Sears and black tennis shoes to convey that he is just plain folk. He uses simple words and refers to his supposed dyslexia to lower the guard of his prey.

The vice president has met his match--a con man who can con another con man. It's bad enough to lose a close presidential election. Imagine how it's going to hurt when Al Gore feels the slap of recognition that David Boies took him for an easy mark.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000

Answers

Isn't it funny how most people on the street have figured this out, but Gore can't. Its spelled EGO and those with a high ego are the easiest ones conned.

-- Taz (Tassie@RuralFlorida.com), December 03, 2000.

Hey, what has Gore got to lose? If he does not become President, his political future is bleak.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 03, 2000.

Lars:

By most indications, it's bleak either way. I can't imagine why anyone would want that job, especially with a faltering economy that's way overheated, a split Congress, no mandate, and a "surplus" that's probably fake, but has *definitely* already been spent just in case it isn't.

On second thought, maybe this is why our choices are so weak?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 03, 2000.


Good analysis Flint. Hadn't thought about it that way.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 03, 2000.

"and a "surplus" that's probably fake"

Probably my ass!!! How can you have a surplus when you are still in debt??? Unless we're measuring by congressional standards,but then again that's still bullshit.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 04, 2000.



Hey, let's go open some bottles of wine. 5,000! Geez I can't even count 5,000 bottles, after the first couple, my eyesight gets worse.

99 bottles of wine on the wall, 99 bottles of wine. Take one down pass it around, 98 bottles... zzzz, zzzz.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 04, 2000.


Does this author really feel that lawyers take cases out of altruism? I would think that the majority of them take cases both for the money and the potential to get their names known by trying high-profile cases. I saw Beck and Boies talking and laughing together on several occasions. They both know why they're there, and, much like actors, I'm sure they could have argued equally well for the other side.

Boies may look like a bumpkin [which I find appealing, myself, having watched Columbo for so many years], but he's extremely respectful of the court, the other attorneys, and knows how to present his case well. Contrast him with Katherine Harris' attorney, Joe Klock. Joe looks frumpy, and does a poor job, IMO. Contrast him, as well, with Barry Richard, who dresses to the nines, has his hair styled, and presents a case that leads one to believe that he'd run over his own grandmother if she didn't move quickly enough when he pulled his expensive car into the driveway.

Somewhere else on this forum, someone mentioned the importance of clear expression and choice of words. I'd not thought about how often I state "I imagine" versus "The way I see it". Phil Beck really took to task the voting device "expert" produced by the plaintiffs because he said, "I imagine..." Phil went OFF. "You IMAGINE?" The poor guy made the mistake of using the phrase again later and Phil said, "Oh...you're IMAGINING again?" The implication was that when one says, "I imagine..." one is reduced to the fantasy world of children.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.


Anita, it's pretty clear on whose side you are with statements like, "Boies ... extremely respectful of the court, the other attorneys, and knows how to present his case well." and "Contrast him with ... Joe looks frumpy, and does a poor job" and "Barry Richard.. run over his own grandmother if she didn't move quickly enough"

I think it's interesting watching the lawyers present their cases. I especially like the judge, rocking back and forth, taking it all in, even explaining the question to the witness at one point, very clearly making it known his grasp on the situation.

I loved hearing Boies (I think) ask the question on redirect to the statistician, "Did you vote?" These tactics are to "throw the witness off" to a degree. I would have loved it if the witness came back with, "No, I heard the media call the election for Gore, and drove back home." But no place for funny come-backs in a court of law.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 04, 2000.


Oops, not on "redirect" but on "cross". My comm graph must be at its low point on the cycle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 04, 2000.

Maria:

I praised Beck, and he was an attorney for the Bush team [not to mention better eye candy than Boies]. I only remember three attorneys for the Gore side....Boies, the really old guy, and the guy who dealt with the chad issue. I thought the old guy did well, and didn't much like the guy who dealt with the chad issue. He objected so much that at one point Boies walked over and had a little talk with him. Since it was Gore versus EVERYBODY, I simply had more from which to choose on that side.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.



Sorry Anita didn't see your "praise" of Beck.

Speaking on Boies' hand on his teammates shoulder... The judge handled him very well, "You're done with this witness!"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 04, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ