Legal ruckus may doom Lancaster's Cafe in NA

[Robin Garr]

<b>Bitter legal fight for cafe partners in New Albany</b>

A months-old West Fifth Street cafe shut down at 8 p.m. Wednesday, its two owners still feuding over money and control.

Troy Lancaster and David Jacobs started Lancaster’s Cafe March 6, leasing the former Pigasus building from Jim Padgett, a friend of Lancaster’s. Five or six weeks later, Lancaster departed from the restaurant’s operation under disputed circumstances.

Full story in the News and Tribune

It is my understanding that this litigation was settled in mediation a week or so ago. The Lancaster's Cafe signs are back on the building.

[Robin Garr]

It is my understanding that this litigation was settled in mediation a week or so ago. The Lancaster's Cafe signs are back on the building.

Thanks for the more timely follow-up, Richard. That's good news. Seems like the sides could have avoided some nasty publicity if the lawyers hadn't tried to stonewall the newspaper.

Did you notice at the bottom of the page a link to an article that the Southside was reopening?

http://www.news-tribune.net/local/local ... 12036.html

Yeah!!

It is my understanding that this litigation was settled in mediation a week or so ago. The Lancaster's Cafe signs are back on the building.

Thanks for the more timely follow-up, Richard. That's good news. Seems like the sides could have avoided some nasty publicity if the lawyers hadn't tried to stonewall the newspaper.

I don't think stonewalling is a fair description. There are very strict ethical rules about attorneys making comments about a case during litigation. Sadly, many lawyers, who just love to see themselves on TV, disregard these rules, but most follow them and that entails not making comments to the press.

[Robin Garr]

I don't think stonewalling is a fair description. There are very strict ethical rules about attorneys making comments about a case during litigation. Sadly, many lawyers, who just love to see themselves on TV, disregard these rules, but most follow them and that entails not making comments to the press.

Seems to me that there's a real difference between calling a press conference and simply answering direct questions on interview. Or, for that matter, simply making your client available. As a reporter, I would much rather talk to the principal than any intermediary (legal or PR), myself.

Again, though, the point is clear enough, I think: The New Albany paper tried to gather information and weren't able to get answers in an orderly fashion, so they were reduced to interviewing third parties who gleefully bashed each other. I'm sure the reporter was happy, but the result was a lousy story.

I don't think stonewalling is a fair description. There are very strict ethical rules about attorneys making comments about a case during litigation. Sadly, many lawyers, who just love to see themselves on TV, disregard these rules, but most follow them and that entails not making comments to the press.

Seems to me that there's a real difference between calling a press conference and simply answering direct questions on interview. Or, for that matter, simply making your client available.

There is a difference, but I would NEVER allow my client to make any statement about his/her case while litigation was pending, and in response to direct questions I would be limited to providing very basic information about the case in order not to run afoul of the ethical rules.

While the Johnny Cochrans of the world do love the limelight, you'll notice that most stories about lawsuits have a paucity of comments from counsel until after the case is over.

SCR 3.130(3.6) "A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury."

[Robin Garr]

There is a difference, but I would NEVER allow my client to make any statement about his/her case while litigation was pending, and in response to direct questions I would be limited to providing very basic information about the case in order not to run afoul of the ethical rules.

I understand and respect your position, Ron. We're on opposite sides of the fence on this one, though, on the basis of the careers each of us has chosen.

It's my firm and considered opinion that good things (other than mushrooms) simply don't grow in the dark, and the New Albany paper's very poor story about the Lancaster operation offers us a clear and vivid demonstration of that.

There's an awful lot of middle ground between denying the public its right to know on one end and being Johnny Cochran on the other.

But I know we're just not going to agree on this.

actually, I do agree. I am a big believer in the free press and the dissemination of information. I just think that the reporters need to get the information from someone other than the lawyer who has an ethical duty as an officer of the court not to make public comments about a case that is going to be tried to a jury. The lawyer also has an ethical duty and professional responsibility to his client to not take any action that could cause his client to lose their case.

In every legal proceeding, the underlying facts that make up the case existed long before the lawyers got involved. The reporters just need to go to those sources.

[Robin Garr]

In every legal proceeding, the underlying facts that make up the case existed long before the lawyers got involved. The reporters just need to go to those sources.

In general I don't really think we're all that far apart, Ron. A good debate about the conflicting interests of free press vs fair trial would probably be better conducted over a couple of bottles of excellent wine than in the form of forum messages, though.

[Robin Garr]

the result was a lousy story.

On reflection, this was a rude remark on my part, and I regret it. It does bug me - as I've been debating with Ron - when lawyers' interpretation of the fair-trial-free-press tension interferes with bringing the full story to the public, but I shouldn't have taken it out on the reporter or his newspaper. Heck, I've been there and done that myself.

I thought we weren't supposed to talk about it on the forum anymore.

They should have asked me. I'd have been glad to say publicly that downtown NA won't suppport two steam tables that close together.

In six months, either the reconstiituted Southside or Lancaster's will be gone.

I hear rumors of a new Mexican place downtown, presumably unrelated to the current operators around town, but the little bird is speaking with murky tone as of yet.

I want in on the discussion about lawyers, reporters and press over those bottles of wine!!!!

b