Hmm… can we please buy a positive headline?
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterEditor’s note: this week we commemorate the 2-year anniversary of the lawsuit that almost killed Mojo Supreme back in May 2006. See Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or read on for Part 6, below:
The Final Countdown: Down to One Business Day
I went to bed on Thursday night half-joking about showing up to court on Monday morning representing myself.
Waking up Friday, I knew that I needed to find a lawyer to help me navigate through the procedural quagmire.
The problem was: I had one business day left and on Monday I had to walk into court. Sure I could ask for a delay to find a lawyer and plan a defense, but I wanted this over with, regardless of what the verdict was.
I knew I would win, I just had to find a way how to.
On Thursday, I got lucky and managed to speak to an apparent injunction specialist, but this was after I had allowed a not-so-specialist walk out of my office with the papers and a $10K check (to give you a sense of the daunting task ahead: just making photocopies would have taken 3 hours). That lawyer ended up charging me for 10-odd hours for half a day’s of “work”, indicating that this would prove to be expensive if I actually chose to go all the way and fight the accusation that I was violating my non-competition and that WatchMojo.com posed an urgent threat to my old employer, with my mere existence causing them irreparable harm.
Why the italics? You see, up for debate was not whether I was violating my non-compete. That would be discussed at the merit stage.
In fact, I knew I wasn’t violating my non-compete, they knew I wasn’t, the American people knew I wasn’t. That is why their lawyers had filed a motion for an injunction trying to shut us down until such a stage. My problem was, their script called for there to be no such trial: their strategy was to shut me down and turn the temporary injunction into a de facto permanent one.
While their lawyers made a lot of mistakes, that broad strategy was the harshest - but shrewdest - one imaginable. They had figured that I was checkmate: I would either simply give up. If I chose to fight, I would be outspent before even starting phase 1.
What are the phases / stages of an injunction? Take notes, one day you will thank me for the following:
All About Injunctions
I’ve covered injunctions aplenty in the past. But I’ll summarize:
> Types of Injunctions
A Provisional Injunction, if granted, shuts you down for 10 days. This can be re-filed perpetually for 10-day periods until you move to the next phase.
An Interlocutory Injunction shuts you down until the merits stage of the Trial. A Permanent Injunction, well, that’s the kybosh on your business and that is oftentimes handed down at this last stage.
In a provisional injunction, you have to pass four tests; in an interlocutory injunction, you have to pass three tests (more on this below).
Those who seek injunctions do so hoping that it proves so expensive and costly that a Provisional turns into a de facto Permanent one. Technically a company can lose round 1 and round 2 but win at the merits, but for an Internet company, any granted injunction is a mortal blow. Had WatchMojo.com shut down and we would have had to wait a year to go to trial, I am not sure we would be here today.
In the case of Injunctions, the system is clear: you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Well, not quite. Here is how it works. With injunctions, the party moving (making the motion) swears on the face of the record - through affidavits and exhibits - that there is some harm being caused by the defendant.
Since they swear that these are all true and accurate (though sometimes, we presume, they are not), a defendant can only argue his or her case using the documents that are submitted on the face of the record.
> Tests
To obtain a Provisional Injunction, the plaintiff/petitioner must pass four tests:
- Urgency: there must be an urgent need to shut me down. In laymen’s terms, you get to your gas station one morning and someone is bulldozing the neighbor’s lawn to erect a competing gas station, but that might not be enough, since that is competition only, what would be cause for an injunction is if it’s an old employee of yours with whom you signed a non-competition; or if they are not an employee, it is someone who is using your trademark.
- Clear Right: Here the plaintiff needs to prove that there is a material similarity in business, or that they have a clear right to get an injunction. This sometimes is used interchangeably with Clear and Apparent Right. If it is Clear Right, it it harder for the plaintiffs and easier for the accused, if it is Apparent Right, it is the opposite.
- Balance of Inconvenience: The key here is not who is bigger or smaller, but rather, who suffers more from the Judge’s decision if one is granted / not granted.
- Irreparable Harm: In the fourth and final test, the plaintiffs must prove that by staying open for business, I cause irreparable harm to them. Loss of clients, traffic or revenue was their argument.
In an interlocutory injunction, you need not prove urgency. Recall that the Petitioners’ lawyers had last Wednesday erroneously filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction; that’s partially why we were given an extension until Monday. But their case was very much making a case that this was an urgent matter.
It should be stated, unequivocally, that harm is far and away the most important factor in injunctions.
If no harm is done, or if the plaintiff says that no harm is done, no way will the injunction be granted. Re-read that last statement a few times. Furthermore, even if some harm is done, then harm needs to be so irreparable and immeasurable that it cannot be quantified in the eventual merits stage of the trial, and as such the judge will grant temporary relief as to prevent losses of an immeasurable scale.
As you can see, once you get to study how injunctions work, you start to feel confident. But on Tuesday when I was served I had zero knowledge of all of this.
Litigation Will Make You Lose Your Mind
Throughout Friday, I spent some time researching all of this, so going into my meeting at 7pm with the injunction maven, I knew what to expect, sort of.
One reason why I absolutely hate my former colleagues and overlords at the mother ship was because of the toll this took on me and my wife:
Friday evening when we left the office, we looked for our car for 30 minutes, just aimlessly walking around. We were both so stressed and strained that we walked around and around and around looking for our car like a couple of crazy people, pressing the car keys hoping for a honking sound, not knowing that we were in fact blocks away from the car.
We conducted such an exhaustive search that had we been put on the case to find Osaba bin Laden, we would have shown up to our 7pm meeting with the lawyer with him. I would have had some explaining to do.
All to say, my wife and I finally found our car and made our way to the lawyer’s office and began to discuss what was at stake - without Osama, of course.
Chambers vs. Courtroom
The previous day, we had agreed to a fee for her to help me out and train me a few hours on Friday evening and again on Sunday evening.
When you tell a lawyer that you want to represent yourself, they think you are crazy. She was busy Monday morning so from the get-go she could not really help me with representation in court, so that was moot.
But then, the other shoe fell.
Monday morning we were not meeting in a courtroom but rather, the judge’s chambers. Basically, this meant that the judge could technically decide not to bring the clients (on either side) into her Chambers. For this reason, I made up my mind to fly the sorties - so to speak - solo.
Besides, even if I would have found a reasonably priced injunction expert (as I had done), there was no way that a lawyer could master the intricacies of new media and how competition law applies to this field. Don’t get me wrong, what we do is not rocket science, but still.
You see, the petitioners had singled-out screen grabs showing WatchMojo.com next to their site, emphasizing things like navigation bars, use of thumbnails, tables and other common aspects between, well, all content sites. At face value, they had managed to paint the sites as somewhat competitive but the truth was that anyone with any web experience - or common sense and lack of douchebaggerie - would know this was a pile of horse shit.
CNN, BabyCenter and IGN all have a navigation bar listing the categories, does that make them competitive, no?
For the love of all things holy, the official websites of the anti-defamation league, the KKK and Nation of Muslim all have hyperlinks, does that confuse people into thinking they’re on the same site?
They were trying to fool the court into shutting me down, plain and simple. This was just one nuance.
F****g Face of the Record
The other problem was that the seven affidavits were laced with falsehoods and outright lies. But, I could not introduce new evidence to support my claims, I had to fight with one hand tied between my back, using the evidence that was on the face of the record.
Incidentally, while many people kept referring to this trial as David vs. Goliath, it’s worth noting a major nuance. David introduced a new weapon (his slingshot) into the mix. Unlike David, I could only fight back using the weapons Goliath had thrown into the ring. I could only introduce new weapons at the merits stage, and, well, you guessed it, to get to that phase I’d have to walk through fire and sell my house to finance the efforts.
All to say, while some might think my decision to represent myself was reckless, the bottom line was it was a calculated decision to avoid the Judge from taking the lawyers only in her Chambers and a desire to keep the costs down should the game go to extra innings.
The Difference Between Being a Doctor and a Lawyer
The truth is, law is not like medicine.
No one can walk into an operating room, perform surgery and successfully walk away without hurting someone. But you can train to be a lawyer for a day. You might need to go back and train for the next day, but on any given day, a commoner can beat a lawyer. I don’t recommend this to any one, or anyone for that matter. I like to argue and debate and any one who is crazy enough to get into a discussion with me will realize that I can answer and address everything.
Law boils down to the ability to understand the legal code and debate it.
Understand that and you can win anything, provided you did not break the law.
The Right to Represent Myself
A bigger problem, frankly, was that IGN was suing both my company and myself. I could represent myself, but only a member of the bar could represent the Company. The lawyer advising me and I actually tried to find a semantic loophole in the Code of Civil Procedure and to this day I think the loophole could have been argued, but that would have sent this into greater twilight zone territory and called for a debate at the Supreme Court level.
If you are really interested in reading about this point, email me at ash@mojosupreme.com or leave a note in the comment and I will follow up with a separate post. I did not want to waste the court’s time with that, frankly.
Ultimately, we simply rolled the dice and took the risk: I would rep myself and pray for the best.
While their lawyers had initially objected to my repping myself and even the Judge on Wednesday had urged me to go and find a lawyer, I was willing to try one more time knowing that at the very least, I could always get an extension, what with now having a relatively reasonably-priced injunction guru as my lawyer, maybe.
It’s worth noting that she had agreed to training me for a couple of hours.
It’s also worth noting that my wife is Greek, so was the lawyer… maybe that helped in her even helping me out on a Friday evening.
Oh, it’s also worth noting, that back in 2004 I had written a book on Alexander the Great; the Greek are impressed by that interest in their culture… and that book will play a role on Monday, hence why I am mentioning it now.
You Can Run But You Can’t Hide
Running through the seven affidavits and thousands of pages, we were able to dissect and pick apart most of their arguments.
But, as we discussed the case itself, we also chatted about the next steps in this game of chess. Tragically, it was becoming clear that their lawyers had calculated some resistance and had planned for a long-term strategy.
You might recall how the initial law firm that helped me - Blakes - had demonstrated just how much lawyers focus on the procedural at the cost of the substantive. My newfound legal expert here, too, was focusing a lot of such details.
But as I explained the online media landscape some more, it was pretty clear that the big bad legal firm of Fasken Martineau was proving that in legal circles - as in business ones - big organizations tend to get sloppy, make mistakes and rest on their laurels.
As we went through the insane amount of arcane details, it was clear that I actually had a strong defense (I’ll outline the details of my defense over the next two days, when I look back at the weekend before the trial date).
The problem was simple: even if I win the battle on Monday at the provisional stage, they will move to the Interlocutory stage. And - you guessed it - even if that happens, then they would move to the merits stage of the trial.
She was politely trying to tell me that unless I was willing to spend tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of dollars, I should simply start a new company.
Friday night was the most “mixed feelings” moment of my professional life: I had realized that I could in fact beat these legal experts in court, but doing so would only prolong the inevitable.
When your lawyer tells you “save your money, don’t fight this, just start something else”, you realize that you are f****d.
It’s Personal
The problem, of course, was that the injunction was not telling me “not to operate an online men’s magazine”; it was telling me don’t do anything: no WatchMojo.com, no blogs, no search engines, no nothing.
I knew that these douchebags were out for blood and if they smelled it they would just continue to nail me no matter what I did. As much as my head said “give up” my heart was saying “fight it”.
Ultimately, I listened to my balls and believed that I would at least fight it on Monday and if nothing else, I’d get a helluvan experience.
The Irony of Ironies
My wife and I left the lawyer’s house that night at around 11pm. Once home, my wife began to film me with a camcorder my good friend had given me earlier in June of 2005 when I got married.
Ironically, I had launched a video content company, but I’d never shot a single shot or edited a frame. We joked about doing a documentary about the ordeal so that weekend she continued to film more and more.
In fact, the previous Wednesday, our cameraman filmed me return from the courtroom and I ended up with a few hours of footage. I came across some of the footage this month and as much as I wanted to put all of this behind me, I realized I had to get some form of closure… so I decided to chronicle it all here.
But then and there, I guess part of it was me realizing that I might not have a company to run come Monday afternoon, and I’d need a new story to tell.
So what happened on the weekend before the trial on Monday?
- Will I show up to court alone or with a lawyer?
- Would the Judge shut us down?
Upcoming posts:
Tuesday: Flashback Part 7 - May 13th 2006: Non-Competition Agreements
Wednesday: Flashback Part 8 - May 14th 2006: Constructive Dismissal
Thursday: Flashback Part 9 - May 15th 2006: The Trial
Friday: Flashback Part 10 - May 16th 2006: Verdict and Subsequent Turn of Events
Back in 1997, Michael Dell was asked what he would do if he were running Apple. He answered:
And at the Gartner Symposium and ITxpo97 here today, the CEO of competitor Dell Computer added his voice to the chorus when asked what could be done to fix the Mac maker. His solution was a drastic one.
“What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,” Michael Dell said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives.
Dell’s comments follow Steve Jobs’s keynote address at the Seybold trade show last week in San Francisco, where the Apple cofounder seemed to win over attendees with his explanation of why he had made certain key decisions, killing the clone market and aligning more closely with Microsoft. The Seybold crowd–as well as some Apple employees–also seemed to be buoyed by the increasing role Jobs has taken on at the company as board member and interim CEO.
But others, like Dell, appear to think that Jobs’s expanded role isn’t helping. There is some concern that Apple will have a hard time recruiting a top-notch CEO because of Jobs’s presence.
Eleven years later, you can pretty much swap Apple with Dell and Michael Dell with Steve Jobs. But the point is: Dell probably should not have said that, and I guess, the lesson is, it’s a good thing Fake Steve Jobs and not the actual Steve Jobs is saying that Dell is dead.
Dell has a strong brand and remains a powerful company. It certainly is not dead, but I think if Michael Dell wants to correct the problems, he might want to transport himself back to 1997 and practice what he preached.
Rupert Murdoch, Mort Zuckerman, the Dolans. All very smart, successful and savvy media owners.
Yet, despite the fact that newspapers and magazines are going down the toilet, they are about to plunk down $580 to $650M for Newsday.
Buying Newsday would have given the News Corporation control of a third major paper in the New York region. Consolidating operations and offering combined advertising buys could have made The Post profitable for the first time in generations and made it a much stronger competitor to its archrival, The Daily News.
But a News Corporation takeover of Newsday could have run afoul of federal regulators, because in addition to The Post, the News Corporation owns two television stations in the New York Area, WNYW and WWOR. The company is seeking waivers from rules that generally prohibit owning a newspaper and a television station in the same market, and owning Newsday might have made it harder for the company to make its case.
Mr. Zuckerman also saw opportunities to strengthen his tabloid, whose executives say makes a modest profit.
Cablevision, controlled by the Dolan family, owns no newspapers and does not have the same obvious opportunities to save money by merging operations. Industry executives said that Cablevision would probably have to invest heavily in upgrading Newsday’s printing plant.
The company is a major cable television provider, the dominant one on Long Island. It also supplies Internet and telephone services, and it owns Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the New York Knicks and the New York Rangers.
Analysts and people close to the Dolans say that with Newsday, the company could offer combined advertising sales and subscriptions, and could use the print and digital operations to promote each other. But throughout the talks, the Dolans and Cablevision have maintained silence about their bid or the rationale for it.
Now call me new fashioned, but I am not sure I’d be invested $600M on a falling sword.
According to Wikipedia, as of fall 2007, Newsday’s weekday circulation of 387,000 made it 10th-highest in the United States, and the highest for a suburban newspaper.
According to Business Week, this picture from Tribune Co., parent of Newsday suggests revenue is falling.
In fact, the same Business Week piece pegs its 2007 net income at $90M. Is 7-8x times P/E worth it for a newspaper?
I guess Cablevision is arguing that it is, because it’s an entry into a new media and provides for synergies with its cable properties; for Messers Zuckerman and Murdoch, it would be as well, since it gives them a greater stranglehold on the NY market. However, with Mr. Murdoch seemingly capping his bid at $580M and not matching Cablevision’s $650M, the News Corp. Chairman is effectively saying that he’s willing to pay as much as he did for IGN but not what he paid for MySpace parent Intermix. Yes, that is comparing apples with oranges… and I guess so is comparing Cablevision’s offer with that of Mr. Zuckerman’s or News Corp.’s:
Competitors insisted that Cablevision’s offer was not, as it appeared, truly worth $70 million more than the others — primarily because Cablevision was also bidding for the real estate occupied by Newsday, while Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Zuckerman had agreed to let Tribune continue to own it. But they conceded that even with that difference, Cablevision’s offer was the highest, by perhaps $40 million.
I am all for diversification and giving advertisers choice, but are the Dolans spending their money wisely? I don’t think so. I’d make sure I resign Jaromir Jagr and Sean Avery first with the NY Rangers, whom they also own.
In fact, I wonder why media companies don’t borrow a page from Eastman Kodak. Back in the 1990s, I believe Kodak ceased investing in new analog initiatives and began to aggressively focus on digital opportunities. I don’t see many people buying or using analog equipment or printing pictures… but even then, look at EK’s stock price and tell me if media should continue to invest in print?
Editor’s note: this week we commemorate the 2-year anniversary of the lawsuit that almost killed Mojo Supreme back in May 2006. See Part 1, 2, 3, 4, or read on for Part 5, below:
I was hesitating between revisiting this entire ordeal: the lawsuit was a week of hell I’d rather not look back at. But, it partly explains my drive to build Mojo Supreme and WatchMojo.com into a successful company.
Admittedly, part of me wants to let sleeping dogs lie, but ultimately, the lessons and behind-the-scenes storyline is too great. So while I would not make it personal, it sure is worth putting down on my paper to get some closure.
This series is more about what went through my mind and how I coped with a seemingly impossible obstacle.
So to put things into context: May 10th 2006 was a false start to the trial, we were given a new date, May 15th. I had a few days to scramble to search for a strategy.
Meet my Wife, the Rock
On Thursday, it was not even clear yet if we would fight back. Even without a big legal firm, it would start to cost a lot of money, time and energy. I was as concerned about the stress on my wife as I was about the company. Ultimately, my wife pulled me aside and told me that if I wanted to fight back - and spend accordingly - she was fine with it. It was a bit like an informal Board meeting on our company balcony. Our office was on the same street as my former employer’s office. From our balcony I could literally look up the street and see their building. Then and there, on that bright and sunny day, I decided to wage war, fight hard and destroy them. They lost the battle and the war then and there.
Business vs. Personal
Thursday May 11th was the third day of this ordeal. I was not sleeping well and my wife and I were reasonably stressed out. I tried to maintain a “business as usual” demeanor at the office, but for all intents and purposes, I had to come to the realization that my business would be forced to shut down. It was frustrating and sad. Sadness turned into anger… and anger led to a desire to strike back at all of my aggressors with rage.
Surprisingly, I was incredibly positive; I’m an eternal optimist, as they say.
Ironically, trying to make sense of why IGN CEO Mark Jung was trying to nail me, I came across a quote of his.
Jung’s business accomplishments reflect his family’s philosophy of valuing dedication and persistence. “Many people wonder how we ended up having two CEOs in the family,” says Jung, who’s sister Andrea, is the CEO of Avon cosmetics. “My philosophy is that you have to understand what tools your family or parents give you and how you apply it to your profession.
“It’s characteristic of Chinese families that certain things you never give up: perseverance and staying positive. There was always pressure to improve where areas can be improved,” he says.
Jung had started IGN - known intially as Snowball.com - and seen it go through the highs of the first bubble and then crashed down to see the tough times, too. He had been able to see the rise once again, culminating it all with a $650M payday from News Corp. Mark held about 13% of the company, so he was set. I could not, however, understand why I was all that important to him in general, and why nailing me in such a dramatic and high profile manner was necessary.
There were two dynamics worth noting:
- I had always shown a respect for him even though a lot of people find his “I’m smarter than you” shtick a tad unbearable. I once mentioned that he should play up the fact that he used to be a McKinsey Consultant and he somehow was offended by that. I was trying to make small talk… We just seemed to clash. I don’t take myself too seriously and I don’t kowtow to anyone, no matter how many degrees one might have or how many zeros their bank account has. I’ll respect the homeless person more than the multi-millionaire if the former is a decent human being and latter is a douche bag. The problem was and is: I will say that and a lot of people rightfully get tired of my schtick, I presume.
- However, where I think I must have “tripped up” was that my president had a subservience to Mark because Mark had effectively made my boss Ric Poupada a very wealthy man. Naturally there’s an element of respect and loyalty. In fact, I had that same feeling towards Ric, Mark, as well as VP Richard Jalichandra (who is now CEO of Technorati) and the executive who led the deal on IGN’s side. They all helped my career at some point, it just so happened that they now wanted to kill me.
Well, while Richard would only move on to Exponential, the parent company of Tribal Fusion, in July, he abstained from the lynching, I think I know why, and will explain in a subsequent post when I discuss the strategy going into the trial.
Anyway, when Ric was trying to decide whether or not to sell, I reminded him that a $13.5M sale was nothing to sneeze at but that if he wanted to remain independent and raise a bit of money, we could build a $100M company and be bigger than IGN and he could be bigger than Mark. Did I believe that? That’s not the point. But as an entrepreneur, you have wake up thinking you can be the biggest and best thing ever. And as a VP, my job was to cheerlead Ric on.
I can only imagine that Ric relayed this to Mark, because apart from this “we can be bigger if we stay independent” talk, I do not see what I ever said or did that made Mark so angry, enough to unleash Operation: Douchebag.
Whatever the case, reading through the mountains of paperwork and seven - count ‘em seven - affidavits, it was clear this was a venomous and personal attack. It was frivolous, it was personal, and excuse me, but this had little to do with non-competition agreements and online men’s magazines, it had everything to do with personalities and egos.
Hatred and Revenue are Driving Forces
In 2007, I read this story in Business Week about how revenge motivates executives. Anyone that tells you revenge is not a motivational force is a liar. I am extremely driven to be successful, I don’t need added sources of motivation.
Ironically, while I was always the emotional and supposedly wild executive whose reactions could not be anticipated, during the proceedings, they let their emotions get the better of them whereas I acted quite diplomatically throughout.
At no time during this week of hell did I ever lash out against them and even during the preparation of my counter arguments did I swerve into the personal.
However, while I was very confident that I could address the substantive, I needed guidance on the procedural.
Corporate Route?
Reaching out to lawyers was the obvious thing to do, but I also actually tried to see if any competitors of IGN would be interested in a representation for equity kind of deal. I guess that was the dealmaker in me looking at all angles.
I reached out to CNET because I knew CNET and IGN were fierce competitors. I considered reaching out to players in the men’s lifestyle space, too, but I feared that this would make my new venture indeed look competitive to a men’s magazine. This was all lunacy, frankly, because I don’t even know what I was trying to gain. However, with my back against the wall and a potentially large legal bill in front of me, I could have easily given up a lot of equity in exchange for representation. Within minutes, it was clear that I was working on limited time and this kind of strange legal strategy would not pay any dividends.
Not all Lawyers are Created Equally
So I began my search to find a lawyer willing to hold my hand as I fought off the biggest onslaught of my life. With two business days before the weekend, I had to get cracking.
- Walking to work I spoke to one of my dad’s lawyers, he said he was not a litigator and employment law not his forte.
- I spoke to our corporate attorney, he was admittedly not a litigator.
- I spoke to one of the attorneys I had consulted (apart from Blakes) and he said he would ask for a $25,000 retainer just to look at the dossier. I actually had that kind of money but it just did not make sense to engage a big expensive law firm. I knew that this was the trap I was being asked to walk into so I had to avoid that at all costs.
- I must have spoke to about 10 lawyers that day: another litigator asked for $15,000 and he too seemed adamant about taking this on because the mere concept of News Corp. made him realize this could - and would - get more expensive.
- I even went back to Blakes and they respectfully said as Canada’s top law firm, they could not offer what I wanted, which was to serve as a legal guide alone. This was expected so at one point, I was referred to one last lawyer.
- She gave me the impression that she had done some corporate work. In my impatience to find someone who agreed with my mandate (to let me handle the actual case but help me with the legalese), I made a major, major mistake.
- This lawyer, while a genuinely nice person, did not really have much injunction or trade law experience. Mind you, she said she did, but in fact did not. This was clear once we got to the crux of the matter.
- Of course, seeing News Corp. / FOX on the file, she had asked for a $10K up-front. With my back to the wall and apparent that I could not find any takers, I gave in.
- Anyway… I met with this lawyer and we started to look at the files and case in general. By now, I had done enough researching and as we were speaking, it was pretty clear that I knew some aspects of injunctions more than she did.
Bear in mind, I just wanted to debate the lawyer (the President of the Bar Association) myself. It sounds really crazy if you don’t know me, but even as a reader of this blog, you can imagine I am probably a well-meaning but extremely brash and confident person. I actually think I can win any battle on any day against anyone.
That was exactly what made the IGN brass disrespect me and the frigtards at my old company hate me. They now combined their venom to tag team me. What the May 9th false start made me realize, however, was that I could not be as comfortable debating the substantive elements of the case if I did not have an actual lawyer to mentor me on the procedural.
The lawyer - whom I now refer to as a family lawyer but was probably just a less experienced business lawyer too - left. I began to get a tad worried but it was now Thursday afternoon.
I won’t lie, the mere fact that someone else would now worry about this was a soothing relief.
THE CALL THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING
By now, my parents and in-laws were admittedly concerned about me.
Apart from cursing my former colleagues, my parents somehow did what they have been doing for a decade now: they just trusted me.
My in-laws were also concerned, but from their vantage point, there was not much they can do. My father-in-law - who has held many corporate roles over the years - mentioned that a family friend was a lawyer and that maybe I should speak to her as well. I had been given her number on the 9th of May, but between my call with venerable Blakes and the other lawyers, I had simply left her a confusing voice mail and forgot all about it.
After the family lawyer had left our office on Thursday and began her mandate, I got a call from her, one Maitre Olga Koutsouris. You might have noticed that I have not named the other lawyers, why? I don’t know. The Fasken lawyers - while pretty douchebaggish in their own right - were mandated to do a job.
I had to channel my anger, hatred and rage against IGN and Askmen towards the lawyers during the trial, but if I see them now somewhere, what can I say or do? They were, as the saying goes, doing their job. But I owe a considerable amount of gratitude to Me. Koutsouris.
Anyway, Me. Koutsouris called me back at about 1 or 2pm that Thursday (after the family lawyer had walked away with the paperwork).
Initially, I figured she too was a family lawyer or corporate lawyer who was too busy etc. Me. Koutsouris was also very busy, and in fact she did not even want the mandate, but I guess because I was a friend of a friend, she not only returned my call but began to ask questions and dole out advice.
As I began to tell her about the case, my eyes were getting bigger and bigger as I found out I was dealing with the Mother of All Injunction Specialists. You can always spot a con artist from the real deal, and she was the real deal.
Simply explaining, for example, that we were given a postponement because the lawyers had sought an interlocutory injunction and not a provisional one, sent her off.
“What?They did what?” she pressed me to repeat. So I did.
“Idiots. Right there, they lost the case, it’s over. These big law firms are all the same,” she continued. In a rare moment for me, I sat there silent, mouth shut, taking notes.
The gist of the call was that I had a strong case, but that even if I win the first phase of the provisional injunction, all that meant was that I get to live another day to take them on in the next phase, the interlocutory one; and after that, the actual merits… echoing the sentiment of everyone that this was to be the beginning of a long, protracted and expensive matter that would cost me - if not the hundreds of thousands of dollars the big law firms were saying - at least tens of thousands of dollars.
We were at least speaking the same currency. I don’t beg, but I pretty much pleaded her to meet me. She was busy and told me she could make some time for me on Friday evening.
Understand one thing, we’re now Thursday afternoon, I have given a $10K check to one lawyer who really had no business taking my mandate on. That $10K would obviously be the beginning of many more payments. I had suddenly found what seemed to be an injunction maven in Me. Koutsouris but the flip side was she could only see me on Friday evening.
I considered the options and decided to call the family lawyer and tell her to stop working on the case and tried to get back my money. Surprisingly, the family lawyer said “no worries” but she would charge me for the hours she had worked on the case thus far.
While Me. Koutsouris was providing me with a glimmer of hope, who was I kidding, even in her best case scenario, I was a dead man walking and sort of knew it.
By Thursday evening I had pretty much gone through all of the emotions. I was drained. I headed over to my parents for a meal. My older brother was also there, as were his in-laws. They were shocked by how laid back I was… if my memory serves me right, by that night, I had resigned to the fact that Mojo Supreme was about to be shut down.
Now pass the bread… I had a hail marry play in my playbook. Would Me. Koutsouris be a mirage and flop or would she be able to whip me into fighting shape for my meeting with destiny on Monday May 15th?
What happened May 12th 2006. Read more here.
PLAY
