Lead Attorney Is Brother of Whistleblower in Duke's $112.5 Million Settlement- Hypocritical And Corrupt Conflicts Of Interests
The Roanoke Times, a corporate media outlet, have always had an aversion to publishing letters that dealt with the "legal profession". Thank God for independent outlets such as the Virginian Review.
Casey's article "Local lawyers score $112.5 million settlement from Duke University" in late March 2019 is testament of how corrupt, hypocritical, and non-sensical the legal system has become.
Sheer lawlessness has resulted and yet the media portrays these highly predatory vultures as saviors and as "Davids vs Goliaths". Nothing could be further from the truth considering attorneys on both sides generate revenue from the same case in an attorney-monopolized judicial system.
There is no way anyone can state based on reading this article whether the claim against Duke University is legitimate. However, there may have been no proof of damages in this lawsuit.
The main point I want to cite for now is this. In the lawsuit filed on the behalf of American taxpayers against Duke, the "whisteblower" against Duke happens to be the brother of a lead attorney whose law firm filed this lawsuit against Duke. For the record, that "whisteblower" will now receive nearly $34 million for his exposure.
Providing arguments by any counsel requires total objectivity, no bias, and zero conflicts of interest. Yet the conflict of interest and inherent bias are so obvious.
When will this madness ends?
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426
Casey's article "Local lawyers score $112.5 million settlement from Duke University" in late March 2019 is testament of how corrupt, hypocritical, and non-sensical the legal system has become.
Sheer lawlessness has resulted and yet the media portrays these highly predatory vultures as saviors and as "Davids vs Goliaths". Nothing could be further from the truth considering attorneys on both sides generate revenue from the same case in an attorney-monopolized judicial system.
There is no way anyone can state based on reading this article whether the claim against Duke University is legitimate. However, there may have been no proof of damages in this lawsuit.
The main point I want to cite for now is this. In the lawsuit filed on the behalf of American taxpayers against Duke, the "whisteblower" against Duke happens to be the brother of a lead attorney whose law firm filed this lawsuit against Duke. For the record, that "whisteblower" will now receive nearly $34 million for his exposure.
Providing arguments by any counsel requires total objectivity, no bias, and zero conflicts of interest. Yet the conflict of interest and inherent bias are so obvious.
When will this madness ends?
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426
posted by Harsha Sankar at 9:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home