The Blind Lawyer Finds the Nut

The most fortunately surprising turn in events surrounding the trial of the disgraced former USA Gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, was the announcement by the governing body that it would not seek to enforce any of its legal rights against former team member and victim, McKayla Maroney, over her decision to speak out about her suffering in spite of a non-disclosure clause in her civil settlement with the organization that was previously agreed upon in exchange for a monetary settlement. It was reported that even a victim impact statement made at Nassar's trial would be a breach of her non-disclosure obligations because the statement would be voluntary and not court ordered.

In what universe does that make sense? Well, this provision of Maroney's settlement agreement would fall into the bucket of things only a lawyer could love. If USA Gymnastics had have chosen to pursue its remedy under the agreement, which would have resulted in a $100,000 claw back of funds paid to Maroney, it would have been both right and wrong in this scenario. Putting a non-disclosure provision in a civil settlement is common and is usually smart business. In this case, it wasn't so much wrong that the clause was in the settlement (putting aside the fact that there is some debate as to whether it would have been enforceable in the circumstances...again, something only a lawyer would love talking about). The reasonable explanation for inserting such a clause in Maroney's settlement is that the defendants likely did not want her to feel at liberty to appear on Good Morning America the next morning to tell everyone about the case and her settlement. Settlements are made to avoid further damage in such cases and payors want assurances that they are not going to continue to pay for the same thing over and over again, regardless of how reprehensible the actions giving rise to the civil damages may have been. It's doubtful that the decision to insert this very standard legal language into the settlement was made in contemplation of the scenario that has unfolded this week. The link below from Time gives a good summary of the events described herein.

http://time.com/5106664/mckayla-maroney-no-fine-usa-gymnastics/

Thankfully, when this unanticipated turn arose, sensibility prevailed and USA Gymnastics put down its sword. Lawyers are not always (in fact rarely) good at giving up on the legal principles that they fight for but in this case, someone gave the USA Gymnastics leadership the good advice to stand down. As someone who is often labelled as "not your typical lawyer" - a description that I take as a compliment - I must commend examples of good sense in the profession. While I don't have insider knowledge of how they came to this decision, it seems like some good sense was applied here.

In closing and for the record, I support everything Ms. Maroney said in her statement read in court this week and I am glad that no legal technicalities got in the way of her saying it.

Let's all keep these victims in our thoughts and prayers.