Like the players in the baseball world, the players in the legal world want the Golden Glove Award – - going through their careers with no errors. Now it is alleged that the L.A. law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP is being charged with an error for how it fielded the post-nuptial agreement between Frank McCourt and Jamie McCourt on the ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
The evidence suggests that when the law firm partner prepared the six signed execution copies of the post-nuptial agreement, three of the copies had one set of exhibits that named Frank McCourt as the sole owner of the Dodgers, while the other three copies had a different set of exhibits that were silent on that point.
My first thought when I read this in the Wall Street Journal was, “Who would think that it was okay to delineate the ownership of a multi-million dollar asset (the Dodgers) on an exhibit, and not have it clearly described in the main body of the agreement?”
Then, even with that, how could there be two different sets of exhibits attached to the agreement?
Although post-nuptial property settlements are generally not considered a solution in Ohio, the lesson of the McCourt case would apply equally well in Ohio if it were a pre-nuptial agreement. If in doubt, legal counsel should be consulted.
Here are the discussion points:
• Should Frank McCourt pursue litigation against his law firm and thereby waive the attorney-client privilege?
• Are there evidentiary suggestions to reconcile the inconsistent exhibits?
• Could a post-nuptial agreement be valid in Ohio?
• Is this just another strike against the once-wonderful image of the Dodgers?
• Shouldn’t Gil Hodges be admitted into the Hall of Fame?
