Here's one thing about this whole Walsh indemnity thing that I don't understand. Can someone who's a lawyer clarify this for me?
* IF Walsh has tapes, then he would be covered under the indemnity clause that the NFL is willing to grant him, right?
* The only thing that the league is unwilling to do is to grant him unlimited indemnity, which would presumably cover Walsh for making statements that are eventually found to be untrue.
* Walsh, wants protection for statements that he BELIEVES to be true, but may eventually be proven to be false. I thought I saw something in there about him asking for indemnity for information presented "in good faith" that may end up not being true. Is that correct?
The short answer, based on what I've heard from people who are lawyers (or at least claimed to be), the NFL's side is indeed lacking in the truth vs good faith area, as Walsh claims. But Walsh's side added other language, apart from the "good faith" aspect, that makes it too easy for him to get the NFL's protection on other lawsuits so long as he can at all tie them into his testimony, to the point where the NFL should not accept his side's proposal either.Ok, here's the details of that.
We've heard from one definite lawyer (Mike Florio of PFT), and from one poster (sorry, don't remember who or in which of the 4 threads it was) who said he's a lawyer. Florio addressed the "truthful" vs "good faith" aspect fairly well. I'll highlight a few spots but the whole thing is a good read:
As we see it, the sticking point is the league's insistence on "truthfulness" from Mr. Walsh. But truthfulness is in the eye of the beholder. As to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte technically isn't being "truthful" regarding Pettitte's Congressional testimony that Clemens admitted to using HGH. Though Clemens isn't inclined to call his good friend Pettitte a liar, Clemens could have taken that approach, if he had so elected.
In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.
In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.
But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.
I'll just add, I'm not a big fan of Mike Florio in a lot of ways (huge ego), but I don't have a dispute with his legal knowledge. And, he seems pretty fair-minded in that he's applying a critical eye to not just the NFL's offer, but to Walsh and his credibility as a witness. I'm not going to cut and paste the whole thing in here as it isn't the focus of your question I'm trying to answer, but go read PFT and you'll find an article devoted to an early evaluation of Walsh's credibility and pointing out any positives and negatives he's seen not just from Walsh but from the Pats to

k, so that said, we had a FBG poster who said he was a lawyer who deals with indemnity agreements say that Walsh is asking for too much. He wasn't, IIRC, referring to anything to do with the good faith vs truth question, but was referring to other language that would allow Walsh to get the NFL's financial protection for any lawsuit that he could tie to his testimony or this case.
This is an example I'm coming up with, as I don't recall that poster giving one, so hopefully I'm on the right track with what he was saying. Let's say that at some point Walsh is able to write a book about what went on, and gets sued over some detail in his contract with his publisher. The wording of his side's indemnity proposal might allow him to get the NFL to pay his legal fees and pay if he loses, because it relates indirectly to his testimony to the NFL (see quote at bottom of my post). That isn't what the indemnity agreement is supposed to be about.. it's supposed to protect him from lawsuits from him violating the non-disclosure agreement, or being charged for having the Patriots property.
So, according to the poster who said he was a lawyer, Walsh's side is asking for too broad of protection. That does not, that I recall, have anything to do with the "truth" vs "good faith" issue, it's other language that they broadened of what would be covered.
I'm speculating as a non-lawyer here, but I'm guessing this is part of the added language that the poster would have been referring to:
"... which may be sustained by Mr. Walsh arising out of, related to or connected with, directly or indirectly, (i) the employment of Mr. Walsh by the Patriots and any actions undertaken by him in the course of his employment, (ii) the taking or retention by Mr. Walsh of any information, documents or other materials that may be deemed to belong to (or constitute or contain confidential information or trade secrets of) the League or the Patriots, or (iii) any disclosure by Mr. Walsh of any such information, documents or materials to any person or entity, including the alleged untruthfulness in that disclosure absent bad faith on the part of Mr. Walsh ("Claims").
So if his disagreement with a publisher over his cut of his book deal is "related to or connected with, directly or indirectly", the "disclosure by Mr. Walsh of any such information (etc)..." then the NFL would have to pay his costs. Since the book was about his disclosure, he could probably argue it was directly or indirectly related. Again, to be clear, that entire example is me, the non-lawyer, trying to explain what I think I heard from the FBG poster-lawyer.ETA: If that poster-lawyer wishes to correct anything I've said, please do, I'd appreciate it.