I wonder if they would consider civil action at all. I would hope they would reopen their case again, but if the victims remain unwilling to participate in arbitration, I suspect they won’t.
The chronicle article said the victims have reconsidered, and are now willing to participate in an arbitration proceeding. They have new legal representation, and that seems to have made a difference.
3 Likes
I think what happens is that immediately after criminal
charges are filed, the person is suspended. If the criminal defendant is convicted or pleads guilty (to a felony?), the suspension turns into a ban; if charges are dropped or the person is acquitted, the suspension is lifted. That would be parallel to SS suspending a person while it investigates, then either lifting the suspension or issuing a ban when the investigation is complete.
3 Likes
I think he should be banned, again, based on the original SS investigation (perhaps adding any evidence that comes to light in the civil case), then when he appeals, SS should go ahead with the arbitration.
Aren’t most civil suits settled, and often with a provision that the defendant does not admit fault?
Perhaps one stipulation the plaintiffs could ask for in the civil suit is that BM not appeal a future SS ban.
2 Likes
I agree with this take. But I believe it is up to the defendant to actually request arbitration in the wake of a SafeSport ban decision. If the McDonald’s lose the civil case… or even if it’s a split decision with just Bob losing…. I wonder if they would bother hiring attorneys to try and go to arbitration to challenge a SafeSport ban.
But if the civil suit ends in a settlement… then I imagine they might try and challenge a SafeSport ban via arbitration.
It will be interesting to see if they do settle, or if the civil suit makes it all the way to court.
3 Likes
I caught an interesting detail in the two major articles about the McDonald matter and the various attorneys involved that I just went back and double checked.
Bob McDonald’s first lawyer was Russell Prince… the same attorney representing Maggie Kehring. Prince has extensive SafeSport expertise, and is a SafeSport critic. It seems Prince was representing McDonald throughout the duration of the investigation. Here is a passage from the Feb 2021 OC Register article that provides a bit of detail on this…
“In fact, the SafeSport report cites McDonald’s “refusal to participate” with the investigation.
McDonald on Jan. 30, 2020, his birthday, received from SafeSport “a written copy of the Notice of Allegations,” according to the center’s report. McDonald, the report said, “denied several repeated, written requests” over a four-month period “to participate meaningfully in an interview with the Center Investigator.”
“I will not produce myself for interviews with the U.S. Center for SafeSport due to the Center’s use of the single investigator model and the lack of substantive and procedural process and lack of substantive and procedural process rights of provided by the Center’s code,” McDonald said in a May 14 sworn affidavit he provided SafeSport.
McDonald also threatened to sue SafeSport in U.S. District Court.
McDonald at the time was represented by attorney Russell Prince, an outspoken critic of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Prince has represented a series of individuals accused of sexual, physical and verbal abuse by SafeSport or national governing bodies, including former U.S. Olympic gymnastics coach Maggie Haney. Haney was suspended by USA Gymnastics for eight years in 2020, after a panel found she had physically, verbally and emotionally abused young gymnasts. Her suspension was later reduced to five years by an arbitrator who ruled Haney had not received proper notice of some complaints. Those complaints have since been resubmitted.
Prince said he is no longer represents McDonald. “
It’s unclear, however if Russell Prince was still actively representing McDonald when he and Debbie made their public statements in August of 2020, following SafeSport’s decision to administratively close this case. What is clear, is that by Feb 2021, they had retained Howard Jacobs to represent them. He answered questions from Scott Reid for that article.
It all just makes me curious about when the McDonald’s parted ways with Russell Prince, and why. It seems like he is a lawyer with good credentials when it comes to challenging SafeSport bans during arbitration because of technical procedural errors on SafeSport’s part…
1 Like
I did not go back to double check it, but I think the newspaper article mentioned that one of the law firms specializes in child sexual abuse cases. Which is certainly important and necessary work. But, man. I would think it must be depressing to go to the office every day if that is the firm’s specialized field.
9 Likes
So, I think you might be thinking of the recent Chronicle article, which mentioned the law firm representing the two plaintiffs in this civil suit… Jeff Anderson and Associates… and that they do indeed represent child victims of sexual assault. The attorney at the firm representing these two plaintiffs in this case is Mike Reck. According to his bio, “ Mike is instrumental in cases against the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, camps, private schools and other powerful institutions and individuals.”
The Chronicle article also mentioned:
“Reck and his firm Jeff Anderson & Associates, which specializes in child sexual abuse cases, also represent four other plaintiffs in ongoing cases related to alleged sexual abuse committed by trainers Jimmy Williams and George Morris. “The pervasive problem with perpetrators in equestrian sports has been evident for decades, and now through the use of the court system, these brave women hope to force real change on a sport that has shown time and time again cannot be trusted to police itself,” Reck said.”
Perhaps this firm is philosophically on a mission to clean house in equestrian sports. I think many of us here would be happy to lend them a broom.
14 Likes
Between working on the George Morris and Jimmy Williams suits for the last year (USEF and Flintridge are also defendants in those suits), I’m sure the plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in this 3rd case against the McDonald’s and the Fairgrounds… well, I’m sure they are raring to go, and collect a scalp or two.
I wish the attorneys luck. Because honestly, the only way attitudes of certain folks at the top of the sport will truly change, and change FAST, is if an organization or two has to write a BIG check for their decision to knowingly tolerate the presence of child rapists for years on end.
16 Likes
I know someone who investigates international pedophile ( the real thing) cases. She does not talk about it actively, obviously , but is highly dedicated to this important work. It take a special person with a true calling to dedicate their skills to such a challenging thing
11 Likes
Am enjoying listening to you legal eagles toss ideas about.
Now if you can just lift your feet so I can vacuum under your desks.
Clerk coming through!
20 Likes
CoTH has been very interesting lately in regards to all types of legal matters. Just another great thing about this forum is all the smarties here.
9 Likes
I too appreciate the intelligent and thoughtful discussion this topic has supported . One of the few threads I always make sure to read .
10 Likes
what point are you trying to make here?
1 Like
I was attempting to correct another poster’s misunderstanding. I have blocked her posts by this point, but I recall she thought the litigation partners I worked for were somehow “less than” the ones she was referring to b/c hers didn’t need “middlemen” or whatever dismissive way she characterised anyone who wasn’t a partner or a partner at certain type of firm or whatever nonsense. Or maybe I needed “middlemen” so I was less than? The posts are rambling and hard to follow and full of digs at the various professionals who contribute here so mostly is was just some snarky put down of me, vxf111, others who have actual professional careers and experience, etc. You know, the usual.
Anyway, it was a clarification that I was, in fact, one of the “middlemen” she was mocking in her misunderstanding, not that I needed them. I was a first year so I certainly didn’t have any team under me. And, not only that, all partners at big firms have such “middlemen”. We call them teams and they are made up of junior associates (though junior to a partner could be as high as of counsel or even a junior partner). If, as she claimed, her experts had no such “middlemen” (i.e., no team under them) then they were not in big firms on big deals b/c that’s not how it works. Such partners have often rather large trusted teams who do the initial work before it gets to them.
Before one holds forth, it helps to have worked at these places and done these deals rather than to simply be adjacent to people who do.
ETA: @BITSA I read my post over again and it seems pretty straightforward. Why do you ask? Maybe if you have that post on ignore as well it wasn’t clear that it was a response to something?
17 Likes
She was responding to LaLa who was essentially claiming that FitzE can’t be much of a lawyer because she works on a team (which is, literally, how lawyers other than solo practitioners work most of the time).
21 Likes
Ah, I see. As a litigation partner in an AmLaw 100 or 200 firm for the last 20-plus years, I certainly get that. Especially when it comes to discovery.
5 Likes
I agree. I did want to clarify something from MHM’s post which wasn’t entirely correct. Not just any criminal charge slaps a ban or an “ineligible,” status by SafeSport. The charge must come from a state. Interpersonal charges don’t count, (ie so and so brought “harassment,” charges on so & so.) Civil suits also don’t count. A civil suit’s burden of proof is based on “the preponderance of the evidence.” A criminal charge (in any court) brought by the state must be proven “beyond a shadow of doubt.” The corresponding percentages of “sureness,” are about 51% in a civil suit and 98% in criminal charges.
Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has been long gone here for criminal charges. Not for civil charges though. Like any bully, RMD thought he played this by the bully manual, if there ever was one. A strong statement made publicly stating his “proven innocence,” followed by a thunderous “thank you,” to “all,” of his “supporters.” I believe, he fully felt this would deter his already reluctant victims into taking further steps. If SafeSport missed that, when almost nobody else did, and didn’t sanction him immediately for violations of “abuse of process,” (possibly) “retaliation,” and in some twisted way, “weaponization of SafeSport,” (by using SS to claim he had been “cleared of all charges,”- SafeSport wasn’t going to sanction him. Probably ever. And I fully believe the JD’s were mislead by SS at some point along the way, maybe many points, due to either incompetence/negligence or recklessness. If we’re talking recklessness, SafeSport likely figured if they lost the trust of JD’s , maybe, just maybe ……. they would go away.
Sadly, for the JD’s, (as I mentioned upthread) this may get worse for them before it gets better. But I find it to be imperative for them to hire a blue chip global firm (preferably based in DC) and take on SafeSport also. Maybe even USEF too. USEF’s precious “donors,” may just get sick & tired of having to front the bill every time one of USEF’s “bad actors,” does something nearly unthinkable. Some may think this all sounds very “conspiracy,” like. That said, most conspiracies often do. Moreover, coming from me…. it just maybe the case, (not saying one way or the other) THIS is definitely ONE of those cases where you (g) would want to put your best & brightest criminal & civil minds at the helm. Then make a commitment to yourself to see it all the way through. (For better or worse, but hopefully the better will prevail.)
3 Likes
I was Magic Circle, but same-same. Yes, it was weird to me that she was saying that a litigation partner who needed “middlemen” (i.e., a team that does all the grunt work and initial review) was just not up to the level of her global firm partner connections.
I was like, what, so our partners, in order to be legit would have had to have said, “Stand down ye juniors, paralegals, document production staff, and PAs! It is I, litigation partner, who will print, collate, Bates number, cull out irrelevant documents, and do all levels of review all by myself as if I were a solo practitioner doing trust and estates in a quaint country village!!”
Oh, and bill the client $700+ an hour to do it. 
Yeah, that’s not how any of this works and it was such a profound lack of understanding even the basic logistics of how these firms function. So, I clarified but then quickly gave it up for a bad job and, instead, used my time to figure out the ignore function. And then, peace reigned and sanity was restored.
14 Likes
