Comments on: Is Kenneth Dam working for Elliott Associates?

By: handleym

handleym — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:10:54 +0000

” Which is odd, because he clearly feels very strongly about the case — strongly enough to enlist Kevin Reed, of the white-shoe law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, to PUT TOGETHER his brief and submit it to the Second Circuit.”

“Pursuant to Local Rule 29.1, Kenneth W. Dam states that he AUTHORED this brief and that it was not AUTHORED or funded by any party to this action.”

So I’m a little confused here. It seems that Dam is very clearly stating that neither Kevin Reed (nor anyone else) wrote the brief. So what do you believe Kevin Reed did that you believe cost a six-figure sum? Regardless of how rapacious lawyers are, I can’t believe the simple act of filing the paperwork (and perhaps reading the brief to make sure there is nothing embarrassing therein) would cost a six figure sum, and no matter how much it cost, if it is true that Reed represents Elliot, then he filed that paperwork as just one of those services for which he is being paid by Elliot.

So it seems more like the cost here is the time spent by Dam in researching and writing the brief. Why would he spend this time? Well, the fact is people do crazy stuff like this constantly. Once someone buys into a particular view of the world, whether it’s economics, politics, or the law, they’re frequently willing to spend insane amounts of time to convert others to their cause. This strikes me as absolutely no different from, to take an obvious example, some of the commenters who stalk your pages and respond, sometimes extremely prolix, to your points.

By: Blox

Blox — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:12:28 +0000

When drafting required disclosures, lawyers are generally careful to follow the required language verbatim if they can. Perhaps Dam’s reference to “any party” rather than the rule’s “person” was unintentional, but it’s odd.

By: MrRFox

MrRFox — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:39:25 +0000

Thin ice here, FS – you’ve as much as accused Dam of a serious offense – something even worse than neglecting to return your calls.

By: amateurediteur

amateurediteur — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:36:25 +0000

This post is surprisingly ill-informed (and/or malicious)for an author of your caliber, Felix. Slowlearner got it right. There’s nothing to see here, and certainly nothing that should call into question the good professor’s integrity.

By: Nameless

Nameless — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:38:50 +0000

I suspect that Kenneth Dam is a wealthy man. Among other things, he served on a board of directors of Alcoa for 15 years. In addition, as a law professor, he could have done much of the drafting on his own, only hiring Reed to polish the rough edges. It wouldn’t be as much of a burden on him as you say.

As the comment above says, Dam may have been asked by Elliott to file a brief, and some form of quid pro quo was implied (or not), and something was worked out between Dam, Elliott, and Reed to avoid money explicitly changing hands. Reed’s page at Quinn Emanuel admits that Elliott is one of his regular clients.

By: slowlearner

slowlearner — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:32:27 +0000

I am really confused by this post. Kevin Reed represents Elliot Assoc. in the case. The way these things usually work, the lawyers solicit amicus briefs that would help out their clients. Why would you assume that it was Kenneth Dam that sought out Reed, and why would you assume that Reed would bill Dam for filing the brief when it was Reed’s own client that would benefit from the brief?

Moreover Nothing in Celarier’s story says that anybody paid Dam to write the brief; it simply says that Elliot enlisted his support. Why do you assume that money must have changed hands?

By: jaherman

jaherman — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:34:39 +0000

1.) I’d be surprised if an amicus brief cost in the six figures.

2.) Commissioned=/=paid for. Quite possible–and much more likely–Elliott just asked Dam to file a brief on their side. Nothing in the Post story you linked says otherwise.

3.) Pick a SCOTUS case at random and you’ll see all sorts of amicus briefs. Many have similar boilerplate asserted interests.