Isn't he also due a (potentially) big bung for exposing a fraud on the US government?
Ex-VMware veep loses attempt to throw out his own $1.5m legal win
A former VMware veep who claimed tens of millions of dollars from the virtualization company over whistleblower victimisation has lost his legal attempt (PDF) to throw out a $1.5m arbitration award made in his favour. Dane Smith, a one-time vice president of the Americas at VMware, blew the whistle some years ago on a secret …
COMMENTS
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Friday 10th August 2018 16:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
AFAIK non-compete agreement are forbidden in California. That's why Jobs, Schmidt & C made an illegal agreement not to look for each others engineers. The whistleblower then was Palm CEO, but IIRC it was settled out of court before the class action started.
Thereby, my take is his lawyer behaviour, albeit unethical (but is there anything ethical in the lawyer profession?) was not illegal. He should have complained much earlier. Did he think she would have helped him from the other side? How naive, if so...
Anyway, a quite disgusting situation, including the lawyers fees....
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Sunday 12th August 2018 08:56 GMT Sean Hunter
Lot of people don't know what Jams is
JAMS is the arbitration service. His counsel didn't join the opposing counsel, she joined JAMS, in the office of the arbitrator. It's not clear why your lawyer joining the arbitrating judge's office would make them biased against you, but that's what he was claiming. The real judge threw that out saying if he wanted to make that claim he would have had to object at the time rather than waiting to see the award and then making the objection.
-
Monday 13th August 2018 05:35 GMT EveryTime
JAMS isn't a court system. It is a private arbitration service, often staffed by former judges.
It's a lucrative moonlighting or retirement gig, so the courts often imbue it with semi-judicial power and have a heavy bias to enforcing its rulings. Yet it doesn't even have the ethics rules of regular lawyers. ("Is it specially illegal? No? Then it's OK to do.")
In this case even a layman can understand how it's a conflict of interest, and how you might not get an impartial hearing if you refuse the waiver.
-
Monday 13th August 2018 16:53 GMT rag2
Bleak House…
Just as in Dickens' Bleak House, it would seem that the only real victors in the case are members of the legal profession. Unlike Richard in Bleak House who ended up with nothing, Dane Smith is better off at the end of the proceedings. But not as better off as the legal profession.
Odd sort of Justice!