Sports

Bret Bielema's Case Against The Razorback Foundation Goes Off The Rails

Reputations may be on the line, as well as the possibility for punitive action by the bench.

By  
on

The pending lawsuit between the Razorback Foundation and former Arkansas football coach Bret Bielema over whether he is due $7 million from a buyout clause based on a failed duty to mitigate damages just took a turn toward the ugly. On November 3, Bielema and his agent Neil Cornrich (also a party to the lawsuit), filed a scathing 15-page motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the defendant/counter-plaintiff Razorback Foundation.

“This joint motion for Rule 11 sanctions is nothing short of extraordinary,” begins the introduction section of the brief. “Not once in their 200 years of collective experience have any of the undersigned counsel filed a Rule 11 motion against any lawyer. What’s more, most of the undersigned counsel have had prior professional relationships with opposing counsel that, in some instances, involved being former colleagues in a law firm and a corporate legal department. Unfortunately, the most extraordinary aspect of this Rule 11 motion is the subject of the motion itself: a recently invented claim of fraud and conspiracy for which there is no supporting evidence, filed by opposing counsel without any investigation of the facts.”

That is a heavy start to a lengthy brief that seeks to establish the notoriety of the lawyers and the lengthy personal relationships on the line based on acts that have taken place in the litigation.

Numerous lawyers and law firms signed the document, including Thomas A. Mars of Mars Law Firm, John C. Everett of Everett Law Firm, John E. Tull III, of Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull, Ryan K. Culpepper of Culpepper Law Firm, as well as R. Craig Wood and Benjamin P. Abel of McGuire Woods, all representing Bielema. Richard N. Watts signed as counsel for Cornrich. On the other side, representing the Razorback Foundation, are many lawyers from Friday, Eldredge & Clark.

The lawyers who filed the Rule 11 motion for sanctions mainly take issue with the Razorback Foundation claiming in its counterclaim that Bielema and Cornrich fraudulently induced the Razorback Foundation to enter into a release agreement knowing that Bielema would not fulfill his legal commitment to try to mitigate damages in the case he was let go by the University of Arkansas. The Razorback Foundation also claimed that Cornrich made fraudulent misrepresentations to it in order to procure the release agreement.

The gist of the Razorback Foundation’s claims, which Bielema and Cornrich take issue with, is this idea that Bielema, Cornrich, and New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick entered into some scheme to cause Bielema to be underpaid for his role with the Patriots, purposefully bringing harm to the Razorback Foundation.

“Upon information and belief, Cornrich worked with his other clients, including Bill Belichick (whether known to him or not), to orchestrate an arrangement under which Bielema could stay in a position where he received compensation just below the offset threshold under the Release Agreement, thereby allowing Bielema to maximize his payments under the Release Agreement and deprive the Foundation of the benefit of its bargain,” the counterclaim states. “Cornrich did so while knowing that such terms were contrary to the agreement of the parties and in willful disregard of the Release Agreement’s requirements. Comparing Bielema to Cornrich’s other clients who acquired much higher paying jobs around the same time clearly shows that Bielema and Cornrich plotted together to conspire against the Foundation.”

Sponsored

The Razorback Foundation was quick to respond to the Rule “11 motion, filing an opposition on the same date that the motion for sanctions was placed on the docket. In sum, the Razorback Foundation refers to the motion for sanctions as “nothing more than a high-stakes Motion to Dismiss designed to attract press attention” and claims that it is part of Bielema’s and Conrich’s fulfillment of threats to inflict damage and harm through the media. The opposition states that Bielema’s counsel has promised that the Razorback Foundation would be ruined in the press, that the University of Arkansas would suffer “collateral damage,” and even that he possesses compromising videos of a nonparty (the nonparty is not mentioned by name and the motion also does not name the specific lawyer charged with making these threats).

According to the filed opposition, when a recent discussion between the parties faltered, a member of Bielema’s legal team texted one of the Razorback Foundation’s lawyers (presumably, Katherine C. Campbell of Friday, Eldredge & Clark), “Katie, RKC. Much love but, respectfully, stop writing sh** like this or I will be forced to ensure we humiliate you. I do not wish to do that, and I expect there will be many opportunities where it isn’t your head above the parapet.” RKC is presumably Ryan K. Culpepper of Culpepper Law Firm.

Judge P.K. Holmes III, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Fayetteville Division, not only has a multimillion-dollar legal dispute on his hands but a war brewing between lawyers on both sides of the table. Reputations may be on the line, as well as the possibility for punitive action by the bench.

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

Sponsored

Topics

,