This is the sad reality, and people let their feelings about the Pats overwhelm everything. I can tell you that my closest friend is a Broncos' fan that despises New England, and despite holding two math and one physics degree she was still convinced far longer than rational that it had to be true because it was the evil Patriots involved.
I'll get the back story on this - either from his firm or from the leading light on the other side, but I'll get it.
And they still got nailed for 'failure to cooperate' just as they did in Spygate. Playing nice did nothing to help, and allowed the NFL to poison public opinion. It was absolutely the wrong call.
But the battle was already lost before the Patriots new that the NFL was spreading false rumors. Had the Patriots come out in denial mode, they would have looked like disingenuous assholes had the leaked data turned out to be accurate.
Not only that, but the public was clearly receptive to any narrative of the Patriots cheating. Had the Patriots ignored the gag order, they would have: 1) appeared defensive; 2) violated the gag order, unnecessarily providing ammunition for a penalty; 3) convinced absolutely no one outside of New England. That's why they implored the NFL to correct the record.
I'd be curious, too, why the Wells Report work went to Paul Weiss and not Covington. Did they want to use a firm they had a more attenuated relationship with, or was Covington not willing to play ball?
More significantly Paul Weiss did the concussion representation as well and billed in excess of $35 million on the matter according to some reporters. They've represented the NFL on a number of matters for years.
I have no idea, but just speculating a few possibilities come to mind...
This surprises me also I was pretty adamant that Ted Wells would play this straight. Mea culpa.
His incredibly defensive performance in the post-report press conference tells me that he knows full well what a compromised, nonsensical report he put together.
They have established who they are. As Shelter notes, this was the tail on the concussion dog. You might call it a loss leader save the fact that they premium billed for DFG too.
That's completely the opposite of my experience. The audit firms are far less willing to push back on commercial pressures than law firms. They also have some vague professional responsibility I oversight. We kind of know this is so from the Enron fiasco (sadly, consulting activities at audit firms have come back)
I was going to mention the exact same thing, but, beyond that, one could actually hear someone (Pash?) coaching Wells on his responses as he answered the questions. He knew what was happening.
Not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure Enron is the best example today. Wasn't one of the main issues with Enron that Arthur Andersen was providing both auditing and consulting services to their client, resulting in huge conflicts of interest?
Yes--and that is why I noted that consulting activities were coming back at the big 4. They are still constrained relative to Enron era but roughly 1/3 of revenue at the big 4 (and most of the growth) is advisory at this point. The Enron scandal shows that this pressure can lead to almost any audit outcome.
We'll never find out, but I suspect the 'villain' at PW is not Wells (who seems to have been the figurehead) but instead Reisner.
Don't forget Wells signed off on the exact same style of report in the Incognito case. Incognito isn't a very sympathetic figure, but that report totally absolved ownership and threw Incognito, other players, and low level staff under the bus.
Hmmmm...are you sure you didn't edit that post? I kid. Shame on me for missing that :-/
I've got to say I wasn't surprised in the least by Wells/PW's willingness to do a biased report, and I think most similar firms or top practitioners would do something similar. In this day and age that's typically how outside counsel operates when conducting "independent" investigations into matters large and small--ultimately you stick with the company line even if you have to say something ridiculous, ignore contradictory evidence, get your expert to do a contorted analysis, etc.
The audit and advisory sides aren't allowed to work for the same client, I believe. It's a meaningful change.
Perhaps it's a matter of degree---I think most all firms will seek to reach conclusion they are paid to find if there is a way to get there.
Couldn't have more of a different experience where I work (big insurance/financial). The amount of $$ they are pumping into tools and staff that will help deliver audits and comply with findings has gotten staggering, border line obscene, over the last couple of years. Maybe because our parent company is Canadian?
The thing that I found and still find to be very surprising is Wells/PW's willingness to put their name on a report that was so easily identified as an advocacy piece and was so easily picked apart. I also found Wells' tantrum with the media to be a big surprise. In short, that PW produced what the client wanted was expected; that the work was not better was not. Then again, Goodell got what he wanted and most of the world ignores the work quality or the reliance on the Exponent dreck.
Yes, though let's separate two things..
I think Wells and Exponent took a a huge public image hit. That the NFL & Goodell, somehow, are the only group walking away fairly unscathed says alot about...well, everything.
This (and other posts like it by attorneys) is fascinating to me and suggests (to me) that knowledgeable attorneys don't have a deep understanding of what actually goes on in large firm white collar/regulatory practice. The Wells report strikes me as being pretty typical of the kind of report that white collar/regulatory groups routinely generate and they frequently do rely on shoddy "expert" analysis from shops like Exponent. I've seen practitioners with names comparable to Wells put their names on more embarrassing work than the Wells report in far more important (although less public) contexts. The idea that putting your name on this report--where Brady did destroy his phones and the guys did talk about deflating balls a bunch and the Pats cut off access to the dorito dinks--is somehow a step further than a top firm or white collar guy would typically go is amazing to me.
If they had a $5M check from a high powered and repeat client, your guys would have done exactly what Wells did.
Yeah, maybe. You are probably right in a directional sense.
Yeah, I don't share that definition of work quality. Sure, by far the most important considerations are achieving the client's objective and pleasing the client. No doubt. But many firms also think about other aspects of quality, like clarity of thought and whether it hangs together, to name a few. It's true that these things are heightened in litigation but this particular report was destined for a much wider audience than most such works. I just expected a higher level of workmanship given that context.
That became a remarkably difficult task once they discovered it was more probable than not that the truth/facts/science were not on their side. I think an argument can be made that they made the best shit sandwich they could given the ingredients they had to work with.
Unless your name is Brady and your lifes effort has been tainted and smeared beyond belief. Or you're the organization which has done nothing wrong and has been penalized in a way which could affect years of success and profits.
