When the Judge Says "This Looks Bad on the Surface" Listen Up!
. . . because the jury is about to transform your $1.7 million commercial dispute into $352.7 million verdict . . . read all about it in this 2001 story, After $1.7 million landed in the wrong account, CoreStates insisted it could seize the money. It was A VERY COSTLY MOVE.
.jpg)
I give you only the article's conclusion, daring you to click on it without reading it to the end.
The overarching question of why the bank didn’t settle remains a puzzle.[The Bank's counsel] thought he gave the bank solid advice. All the lawyers who joined in the bank’s defense hold to that position: Legally, they contend, the bank was within its rights in seizing the $1.7 million.
But the case ran away from them. It got bigger and bigger and worse and worse. And there was no stopping it. One defense lawyer observed, “It went to hell in a handbasket.”
Maurice Mitts says his client is willing to call it quits for the $56 million. But First Union still isn’t willing to pay a big number. Mitts isn’t surprised.
“ ‘We know the law, we are the law, and too bad for you,’ ” Mitts said. “That’s been their attitude all along.”
Thanks to the Philadelphia law firm of Mitts Milavec, LLC for fighting the good fight and posting this dynamite legal tale.
I guess that the bank needed a Cromwell to tell them:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."