Subject: Rothman Case: My Strategy Analysis—Privileged and Confidential

Dear Hunter,

I know that Audrey is responsible for strategy, but we should share it as we are both the same level. Also, since I am in the trenches and responsible for defensive discovery, I’ve written my own strategy memo.

In summary: We should lead with Rothman, our stronger case, so that we dominate. The Rothmans also want this case resolved quickly.

We should not offer to settle the James case even though the facts are bad and may indicate fraud. We should hold out and see how the case develops. We can always offer that as the first bargaining chip if necessary when settlement negotiations are raised.

We look weak if we offer settlement immediately.

Very truly yours,

Colette

Audrey huffed out a breath; she should’ve guessed that Colette was not content with just defensive discovery.

Hunter said, “She raises some good points. She should share strategy. And maybe we should hold out longer and not offer up James. It will make us look weak if we lead with a request to settle that.”

A cold distance widened between them. It was as if she was facing litigator Hunter and not colleague-and-friend Hunter. How had Colette changed him so quickly?

“We are not offering up settlement immediately,” she said. “I proposed deposing the James case plaintiff first to get intelligence about him, a sense of opposing counsel, and to smoke out any arguments counsel may use in other cases. If that plaintiff is a highly sophisticated investor, then James has a legal defense. If not, only after that deposition, did I suggest settlement. And what other option do we have if the internal investigation finds that James was fraudulently trading? What does Colette say about that?”

Hunter sat in the chair facing her desk, leaning back, one leg crossed over the other. “She said the internal investigation can’t find intent as required for a finding of fraud, so we can still argue that James didn’t intend to make the trades to increase his commissions. She suggested we put the investigation on hold while the litigation is pending.” His look was assessing.

“That doesn’t set a positive precedent at Hen. Hen’s anti-fraud policy doesn’t look at intent. It looks at the number of trades and any justifications. Hen won’t agree to that. And ultimately, Hen is our client.” She was sounding defensive. Easy, you’ve still got this. “I’ll read her memo in detail, but I’ve already thought about the points in her email. They are good points, but when I plot out various possible outcomes, ultimately I still think my approach will be more successful.”

“You plotted out various outcomes?” He leaned forward.