I thought that reporters who were suggesting that Ms. Eramo's attorneys ask for an additional amount of money past what they initially asked for, which seems to be around $7.5 million, were being vindictive. I also think that it would be greedy and unnecessarily punitive for her side to ask for money past that amount; Rolling Stone has another lawsuit to get through after this one, and the final plaintiff is already asking for more than three times what Ms. Eramo has asked.
Because I am on Rolling Stone's side about the situation generally, I am also on the side of not paying the $7.5 million. My suggestion at the beginning of the trial that Rolling Stone try to settle for $2.5 million, out of court and with sealed records, seemed reasonable to me, but of course I am neither a lawyer nor a professional haggler. Isn't what usually happens that the paying side offers a much lower settlement than the plaintiff requested and then they negotiate?
For Ms. Eramo to be given a losing verdict would have jeopardized her ability to continue to be employed at the University of Virginia, a school to which she has given her life so far. My thought is that a reasonable settlement would give her some leverage if she wants to continue to work there, and some freedom if she wants to leave.
If I were the lawyer for this particular case, I think that what I would be saying to my client is "Settle the case. Gain a friend, if you can." That's what I've been thinking since the trial started.
I think that I would also say, today, "Stop apologizing to Ms. Eramo. You have already apologized, and you know that you're probably going to pay her some money. You need to think about the next case, because every word that you say or write is going to be used against you by Phi Kappa Psi. Be cordial, sign the check, and start thinking about the future."
Copyright L. Kochman, November 7, 2016 @ 2:37 p.m./additions @ 2:57 p.m.
