Dapper or other Lawyers; thoughts on NCAA stuff

[borncane]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

 

[borncane]

This is a case closed statement. They have an agreement with UM in place. Now come out and say "Nothing to see here, move along". NOA comes out a bit later with nothing new. Punishment issued=time served.

That's my call until one of you lawyer types blows a whole into my theory.

At this point you would think a settlement would be in both parties best interest. Especially if the NCAA wants to put a lid on whatever improper behavior it may have been a part of.

But they could also bite the bullet and say it played a small role in the larger case and those bad apples have been dealt with. The NCAA might not want to set a precedent that it will settle infractions.

 

[The Franchise]

This is a case closed statement. They have an agreement with UM in place. Now come out and say "Nothing to see here, move along". NOA comes out a bit later with nothing new. Punishment issued=time served.

That's my call until one of you lawyer types blows a whole into my theory.

At this point you would think a settlement would be in both parties best interest. Especially if the NCAA wants to put a lid on whatever improper behavior it may have been a part of.

But they could also bite the bullet and say it played a small role in the larger case and those bad apples have been dealt with. The NCAA might not want to set a precedent that it will settle infractions.

The only precedent it would set is that in cases where the NCAA runs an openly corrupt, fraudulent and extortive investigation they will settle to avoid having their whole organization embarrassed and humiliated. Otherwise, it won't set any precedent at all.

 

[nope44]

Dapper -

Do you know if she has a Florida Bar inquiry into her as a result of this? --- Saying she does, how does that impact the NCAA ability to keep her mouth shut? --- Will any attempt she makes to save her own skin with the Bar, be available for Miami's use?

Thx!

I believe an inquiry had been filed already. She has some time to respond to their written inquiry and then a determination will be made. If pushed further, she'll have to write out her explanation, notarize it, and then they begin their official investigation and info gathering from witnesses. It it proceeds to the next level, then she goes before three of the board members (with a court reporter present as it is usually an actual legal proceeding) and they decide on a possible punishment or deal and she either accepts or appeals.

Any info retrieved could be deemed a-c privilege and remain within the confines of the hearings, but a certain amount of info will be leaked out or included in the public report by the bar. Stated differently, the bar could investigate and, assuming wrongdoing has occurred, they can release info in their public notice stating vague terms concerning her unprofessionality. In my personal experiences, I've seen them require attorneys to atone for their misdoings. In her case, who knows. Too many unknowns at this point.

It really all hinges on what goes on in the hearing, if it even reaches that point.

 

[djh]

Dapper -

Do you know if she has a Florida Bar inquiry into her as a result of this? --- Saying she does, how does that impact the NCAA ability to keep her mouth shut? --- Will any attempt she makes to save her own skin with the Bar, be available for Miami's use?

Thx!

I believe an inquiry had been filed already. She has some time to respond to their written inquiry and then a determination will be made. If pushed further, she'll have to write out her explanation, notarize it, and then they begin their official investigation and info gathering from witnesses. It it proceeds to the next level, then she goes before three of the board members (with a court reporter present as it is usually an actual legal proceeding) and they decide on a possible punishment or deal and she either accepts or appeals.

Any info retrieved could be deemed a-c privilege and remain within the confines of the hearings, but a certain amount of info will be leaked out or included in the public report by the bar. Stated differently, the bar could investigate and, assuming wrongdoing has occurred, they can release info in their public notice stating vague terms concerning her unprofessionality. In my personal experiences, I've seen them require attorneys to atone for their misdoings. In her case, who knows. Too many unknowns at this point.

It really all hinges on what goes on in the hearing, if it even reaches that point.

They have.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/26/3201094/florida-bar-opens-file-on-miami.html

 

[nope44]

Dapper -

Do you know if she has a Florida Bar inquiry into her as a result of this? --- Saying she does, how does that impact the NCAA ability to keep her mouth shut? --- Will any attempt she makes to save her own skin with the Bar, be available for Miami's use?

Thx!

I believe an inquiry had been filed already. She has some time to respond to their written inquiry and then a determination will be made. If pushed further, she'll have to write out her explanation, notarize it, and then they begin their official investigation and info gathering from witnesses. It it proceeds to the next level, then she goes before three of the board members (with a court reporter present as it is usually an actual legal proceeding) and they decide on a possible punishment or deal and she either accepts or appeals.

Any info retrieved could be deemed a-c privilege and remain within the confines of the hearings, but a certain amount of info will be leaked out or included in the public report by the bar. Stated differently, the bar could investigate and, assuming wrongdoing has occurred, they can release info in their public notice stating vague terms concerning her unprofessionality. In my personal experiences, I've seen them require attorneys to atone for their misdoings. In her case, who knows. Too many unknowns at this point.

It really all hinges on what goes on in the hearing, if it even reaches that point.

They have.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/26/3201094/florida-bar-opens-file-on-miami.html

So assuming the terms in the inquiry forwarded by the florida bar, she typically has thirty days to respond in writing. Assuming it goes to a hearing before the bar, the quickest I have seen it done is 9-10 months.

 

[CaneSuger]

God I hate lawyers.

 

[umhurricano]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

 

[CaneSuger]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

 

[The Franchise]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

 

[CaneSuger]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

Her greed will be her undoing. I saw this coming over a year ago. You want to make money representing a scumbag, that's one thing. Be smart and don't do it at the expense of powerful people.

Donna Shalala is a powerful woman. The trustees are powerful people. UM is a powerful institution in Florida. Perez is a nobody by comparison. By going up against Miami, her mouth was writing checks her *** can't cash.

You can bet they've been waiting for her to ***** up. Anything would have worked. Now she has, and you can bet she'll be raked over the coals for it.

 

[Bigtip]

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

that is the whole issue. the ncaa should not be seeking to take down Miami per se but look for the truth. by colluding with a convicted conman via paying his attorney for info they have shown that their interests are not in the spirit of the investigation but rather to hammer Miami just cus.

that **** wont fly in court. if losses are incurred by UM because of these unethical or possibly fraudulent actions (which they objectively and substantially have) then UM would break one off in em in a civil court

 

[umhurricano]

How could the NCAA call client attorney privileges if the the attorney abused her power in the first place?

Perez was hired by Shapiro
Perez was hired by the NCAA
The NCAA has no subpoena power
Perez has subpoena power.
Perez used her power of subpoena to gather information for the NCAA

Since both parties both abused their powers to gain / compel information against Miami, shouldn't that whole attorney / client union be dissolved?
Am I making sense? Miami likely has lawyers that would be able to blow that idea to Bolivia..

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

For the sake of brevity I skipped a few steps. Their interests (Shapiro and the NCAA) align in the sense that the NCAA was interested in investigating Miami and Shapiro wanted his story told.

I, perhaps wrongly, used the phrase "bring Miami down," although the fact that the NCAA used the subpoena power of an attorney representing a client in an marginally related proceeding is prima fascia evidence (to me at least) that the NCAA investigation was not objective (to CaneSugar's comment).

The only issue with regard to conflict of interest is whether either party would wave that conflict in the depositions taken, and I think the interests were aligned enough that, if they had not been caught, both would have waived conflict, thus leading to my conclusion that it would be a Florida bar ethics investigation only.

I really like your posts, Franchise, so I was a little surprised that, as a lawyer, you didn't see that line of reasoning.

 

[CaneSuger]

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

that is the whole issue. the ncaa should not be seeking to take down Miami per se but look for the truth. by colluding with a convicted conman via paying his attorney for info they have shown that their interests are not in the spirit of the investigation but rather to hammer Miami just cus.

that **** wont fly in court. if losses are incurred by UM because of these unethical or possibly fraudulent actions (which they objectively and substantially have) then UM would break one off in em in a civil court

Yep, exactly how I see it too.

 

[The Franchise]

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

For the sake of brevity I skipped a few steps. Their interests (Shapiro and the NCAA) align in the sense that the NCAA was interested in investigating Miami and Shapiro wanted his story told.

I, perhaps wrongly, used the phrase "bring Miami down," although the fact that the NCAA used the subpoena power of an attorney representing a client in an marginally related proceeding is prima fascia evidence (to me at least) that the NCAA investigation was not objective (to CaneSugar's comment).

The only issue with regard to conflict of interest is whether either party would wave that conflict in the depositions taken, and I think the interests were aligned enough that, if they had not been caught, both would have waived conflict, thus leading to my conclusion that it would be a Florida bar ethics investigation only.

I really like your posts, Franchise, so I was a little surprised that, as a lawyer, you didn't see that line of reasoning.

You seem like a nice chap, so I'll just ax you how the bankruptcy proceeding was related to the NCAA investigation of UM. Further, if you think what you outlined is the "only" conflict of interest, then we'll just agree to disagree. Are you an attorney?

 

[CaneSuger]

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

For the sake of brevity I skipped a few steps. Their interests (Shapiro and the NCAA) align in the sense that the NCAA was interested in investigating Miami and Shapiro wanted his story told.

I, perhaps wrongly, used the phrase "bring Miami down," although the fact that the NCAA used the subpoena power of an attorney representing a client in an marginally related proceeding is prima fascia evidence (to me at least) that the NCAA investigation was not objective (to CaneSugar's comment).

The only issue with regard to conflict of interest is whether either party would wave that conflict in the depositions taken, and I think the interests were aligned enough that, if they had not been caught, both would have waived conflict, thus leading to my conclusion that it would be a Florida bar ethics investigation only.

I really like your posts, Franchise, so I was a little surprised that, as a lawyer, you didn't see that line of reasoning.

Shapiro didn't "want his story told." You make it sound like he wanted to tell the world of his childhood growing up in Assfart New Jersey. His interest was to present a case against Miami, in order to bring the program down "to Chinatown," to use his words.

The NCAA, on the other hand, is supposed to objectively investigate and then consider all the evidence it has gathered.

This is about as clear-cut a conflict of interests as you can get. One party (Shapiro) has an agenda and a stated goal - to see a specific outcome of the NCAA investigation. The other party's stated interest is to objectively gather evidence.

Remind me never to hire you as my attorney.

 

[SFbayCane]

Good discussion in this thread.


Thanks to all.

 

[DerpaDerp]

Judge: Ms Perez, I read this transcript and you were given orders to proceed with discovery on the bankruptcy case and I read here things which have nothing to do with the case I am presented with and everything to do with something from an organization called the NCAA. Now as an officer of the court, you want to explain to me how looking for Mr. Shapiro's receipts for a few drinks he says he bought for University of Miami athletes has anything to do with recovering the close to $1 billion dollars we are charged with finding? Take your time, I wouldn't want you to be accused of abusing your authority as an officer of the court.

Perez: Uh….

 

[DMoney]

Here's my legal opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

 

[NoahZach]

There r waiver issues when you are representing two clients in the same litigation however I don't think those would apply here.

Yeah, the issue there is more about conflict of interest or violation of the Florida bar's code of conduct than attorney client privilege. I can't remember the exact legal ethics rules, but Shapiro's interests seem pretty well in line with those of the NCAA--bringing down Miami, so the violation would be a more esoteric ethics violation.

The attorney client privilege issue revolves around what is considered privileged communication between Perez and the NCAA and therefore would not be discoverable in a suit brought by Miami. The great irony is that the NCAA praised Miami for their transparency while seeking to shield their own misdeeds.

On a side note, those bashing attorneys on this board (I am not an attorney) have a very narrow view of what most attorneys do, and will likely be very happy if attorneys get Miami out of this mess with the NCAA.

Since when can the NCAA's interests be described as "bringing down Miami?"

The NCAA's interests would be to objectively investigate the Miami case. Shapiro's interests would be to bring down Miami. That's a clear conflict.

You are correct. I don't think their interests align at all.

On top of that, you have the very real issue of Pig ***** Perez abusing process by using a bankruptcy proceeding to advance her own pecuniary interests (i.e. grubbing money from the NCAA). There's no way at all around the fact that what she did in that proceeding had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action, and that is a serious abuse of the system and of her power as an officer of the court solely for her own personal greed.

For the sake of brevity I skipped a few steps. Their interests (Shapiro and the NCAA) align in the sense that the NCAA was interested in investigating Miami and Shapiro wanted his story told.

I, perhaps wrongly, used the phrase "bring Miami down," although the fact that the NCAA used the subpoena power of an attorney representing a client in an marginally related proceeding is prima fascia evidence (to me at least) that the NCAA investigation was not objective (to CaneSugar's comment).

The only issue with regard to conflict of interest is whether either party would wave that conflict in the depositions taken, and I think the interests were aligned enough that, if they had not been caught, both would have waived conflict, thus leading to my conclusion that it would be a Florida bar ethics investigation only.

I really like your posts, Franchise, so I was a little surprised that, as a lawyer, you didn't see that line of reasoning.

But, what happens if there is a question that needs to be asked to advance the investigation of Miami, but Perez knows either that the answer to the question will help Miami's cause (contrary to Shaprio's desire) or, alternatively, will compromise Shapiro's other legal interests? The NCAA would want the information, but Shapiro does not want it revealed. What does Perez do? Does she ask the question? What information does Perez have from her representation of Shapiro that already might help Miami's case and in which the NCAA would have an interest in conducting a complete investigation, but Shapiro wants withheld because it will benefit Miami? How does Perez report facts to the NCAA while withholding other information pertinent to that report?

That's the problem. She can't serve two masters when it is apparent that, at some point, their interests either will diverge or conflict and she'll be in the middle? Perez made no bones about the fact that she believed she was working for Shapiro. So, what information did she withhold and what lines of questioning did she not pursue while simultaneously representing the NCAA?

This is a mess for the NCAA. Merely putting her on the payroll creates a huge ethical sinkhole. How the NCAA ever jumped in bed with Shapiro and his lawyer is beyond me. I imagine that the sanctions it imposed on UM might have required it to disassociate from Shapiro, had UM not already done so anyway. Think about the absurdity of that and where the NCAA put itself. It hired Shapiro's lawyer to ask questions prepared by Shapiro about NCAA violations in which Shapiro engaged as an outgrowth of a billion dollar fraud that Shapiro masterminded.

That level of idiocy at the NCAA and blind, ambitious pursuit of an investigatory end regardless of the means boggles the mind. The organization is supposed to hold itself to a higher standard--one perhaps at or above the level that it demands of the institutions that make up its membership. Instead, it decided to slither with a snake, abuse unrelated legal processes, disrespect a federal court and abandon any notion of unbiased and ethical investigatory processes. There's not a hole deep enough for the NCAA to bury the shame of its conduct in this fiasco.