Comments on: AG’s office blocks Asti settlement http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:31:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: curious http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-159 curious Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:21:31 +0000 http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-159 wonder whythe bpw was not asked to approve the large settlement between msa and ellerbe beckett handled by the oag on the comcast arena....., or the settlement with csx handled by the oag on the tunnel fire..... and bpw was not asked to approve the $5m selection of the video board contractor (until the bpw complained)... wonder whythe bpw was not asked to approve the large settlement between msa and ellerbe beckett handled by the oag on the comcast arena….., or the settlement with csx handled by the oag on the tunnel fire….. and bpw was not asked to approve the $5m selection of the video board contractor (until the bpw complained)…

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-44 Anonymous Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:36:00 +0000 http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-44 Who would have thought men could be so petty with such long memories? Who would have thought men could be so petty with such long memories?

]]> By: XLegalLady http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-43 XLegalLady Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:08:00 +0000 http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-43 I agree with anonymous (8:52 post).<br/><br/>In addition, if the AG's office has a good faith belief/legal argument that the contract is invalid, why should the office sign off on any settlement related to it? To do so would be a disservice to the State and its taxpayers.<br/><br/>Also, it seems contrary to the notion that clients are free to choose their own counsel when there is a supposedly a provision that requires a client (in this case, MSA) have a particular general counsel (here, Asti). I agree with anonymous (8:52 post).

In addition, if the AG’s office has a good faith belief/legal argument that the contract is invalid, why should the office sign off on any settlement related to it? To do so would be a disservice to the State and its taxpayers.

Also, it seems contrary to the notion that clients are free to choose their own counsel when there is a supposedly a provision that requires a client (in this case, MSA) have a particular general counsel (here, Asti).

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-42 Anonymous Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:52:00 +0000 http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2007/09/27/ag%e2%80%99s-office-blocks-asti-settlement/#comment-42 Saying that the Board approved the settlement is no different than saying the head of an agency approved a settlement. This does not suffice. State settlements are not left in the hands of one person or group of people because the public fisc is at stake. The Chief of Civil must approve all major settlements and, in turn, the Board of Public Works must approve them. Asti's settlement was not singled out for special treatment; to not have subjected her proposed settlement to Civil Division review would have constituted special treatment. If a proposed settlement is truly in the public interest, it should have little difficulty garnering support from the agency, the Chief of Civil and the Board of Public Works. Saying that the Board approved the settlement is no different than saying the head of an agency approved a settlement. This does not suffice. State settlements are not left in the hands of one person or group of people because the public fisc is at stake. The Chief of Civil must approve all major settlements and, in turn, the Board of Public Works must approve them. Asti’s settlement was not singled out for special treatment; to not have subjected her proposed settlement to Civil Division review would have constituted special treatment. If a proposed settlement is truly in the public interest, it should have little difficulty garnering support from the agency, the Chief of Civil and the Board of Public Works.

]]>