Cops pulled over West Virginia University basketball coach Bob Huggins in the Allegheny West area of Pittsburgh last month. He blew a .21 and apparently had a garbage bag in the passenger seat filled with empty beer cans because he believes in recycling. Soon afterward, the university announced that the Hall of Fame coach had resigned.
Or did he?
That’s the latest wrinkle in the Huggins drama. While the school released a resignation statement from Huggins at the time, he’s now denying that he ever wrote or even looked at the statement and says that his wife sent the resignation without his approval. To that end, his attorney David Campbell of Lewis Brisbois wrote the university asserting that Huggins is still employed under the coach’s agreement with the school.
How Time Tracking And Passive Tracking Tools Are Helping Law Firms Capture More Revenue
Discover how passive time-tracking tools help law firms boost revenue, reduce billing errors, and save time—featuring insights from the 2025 MyCase Legal Industry Report.
WVU General Counsel Stephanie Taylor… disagrees.
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Thank you for your letter confirming that you are in fact representing Mr. Huggins. I will await confirmation from Mr. Huggins’ other counsel on their status in terms of their representation of him, as I noticed that your letter implies that your representation may be limited to this belated request to “return to active coaching duties.”
“Other counsel” is a red flag. While Campbell has challenged the school over the resignation, Huggins has not one but two other attorneys. And those attorneys have spent the last three weeks dealing with the school over the coach’s resignation.
After reading your recent letter, I am still confused by your allegations. Are you asserting that Mr. Huggins never resigned? Is it your position that Mr. Gianola, the longstanding lawyer for Mr. Huggins, engaged with the University on June 17 without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Huggins? And then Mr. Huggins’ wife submitted his resignation without his knowledge or authorization? Finally, that Mr. Huggins did nothing to rectify this situation for almost three weeks? Or, are you asserting that Mr. Huggins did resign, but his notification did not meet the technical requirements under the Employment Agreement? Are you suggesting that the only way Mr. Huggins could resign would be through registered or certified mail?
Thomson Reuters Editors + Law-Based AI: Why The Sum Is Greater Than The Parts
Practical Law's ‘Dynamic Tool Set’ application allows you to unleash the power of an army of attorney-experts while leveraging state-of-the-art gen AI.
Not to diminish the legal import of the Jones Day alum’s response, but this is a brutal paragraph to put in front of sports media covering a high stakes coaching retirement. Each question in this string makes the revocable resignation position appear more laughable. It also does a great job of condensing the otherwise eye-glazing recitation of details over the following pages into a devastating little pull quote for the press.
Either way, the facts prove these positions meritless. I would again encourage you to do appropriate due diligence before asserting a position that is clearly contrary to the documented evidence.
Oof. The only time a lawyer can hold their head high after a scolding for failing to do due diligence is when the lawyer’s high profile client is stupid enough to waive due diligence entirely.
Also, isn’t it a quirky coincidence that Huggins is going to get taken down by two different Taylors? Because we’re not saying the coach was partying in Allegheny West that night because the Taylor Swift concert was kicking off in the nearby stadium, but even if that wasn’t the reason Huggins drove up to Pittsburgh, it’s almost certainly the reason there were a bunch of cops hanging around the area looking for drunk Swifties.
After Mr. Gianola informed the University that Mr. Huggins decided to resign and retire, the University told Mr. Gianola that it needed a writing from Mr. Huggins to that effect. Mr. Gianola specifically asked the University if it would accept Mr. Huggins’ resignation via an email sent by his wife, June Huggins, because (1) Mr. Huggins does not use email, and (2) Mr. Gianola was having IT issues at his firm and could not access his email reliably. Moreover, Mr. Gianola specifically requested the University send language that the University would find acceptable in such a resignation notification. In an effort to accommodate Mr. Huggins, the University agreed to accept the notification from Mrs. Huggins’ email account and to send language we would find acceptable.
Without digging into the particulars of how West Virginia handles implied agency, that seems like WVU could have a lot of confidence in those agents.
As for the “registered or certified mail” issue previewed on the first page, Taylor explains that whatever the notice requirements might hold, they exist for the benefit of the party being notified. And WVU is willing to accept the emailed resignation.
There is no support in the law or on these facts to suggest that Mr. Huggins may now ignore his resignation and his actions upon which all have relied, undo his voluntary separation, and return to work as if none of this ever occurred.
Not to quibble with Taylor, but there is some precedent…
Though I’d suspect this is going to work out for Huggins about as well as it did for George.
Taylor’s full response on the next page…
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.