
Mike Florio is an attorney who writes for ProFootballTalk.com and Sporting News, mostly on issues of football. Yesterday, he had an interesting legal article about the Roger Clemens
Though I have to agree with him that the Clemens case has been a text book for celebrities on how not to preserve your reputation using the legal process, I disagree with my legal colleague on how much responsibility he puts for the Clemens mess on Hardin.
We are likely going to never know the details of Rusty Hardin's advice to Roger Clemens. Such discussions are privileged.
All we can know is what we know publicly of both men.
I've met Rusty Hardin very briefly in social settings, but don't really know him. Though some dismiss him as an idiot, Hardin has a longstanding reputation for being an experienced, detail-oriented, skilled advocate who has prevailed in some very difficult cases. I cannot fathom that someone with his abilities and experience wouldn't have informed his client about the possible consequences of testifying in front of Congress or what can be revealed during a defamation suit.
What we know of Clemens is that he is a very prideful, competitive man. Someone who cares deeply about his reputation, though maybe not enough to be careful to keep out of situations that might end up looking bad.
Repeatedly, both Hardin and Clemens have publicly expressed what risk Clemens is taking in speaking the truth as Clemens sees it. As Hardin states:
"He knew every one of the potential legal risks he was running. He made the decision that he had nothing to fear in the end result, though in the short-term, there would be problems. He knew the short-term problems. This referral [to the Justice Department] is one of them. He knew about it.
"But he is absolutely insistent that he did not take steroids, he did not take human growth hormone, and it would have been hypocritical and in violation of everything he's ever believed in to act as if he did by hunkering down. Rightly or wrongly, he chose not to hunker down, but to come out publicly and defend himself."
I don't know what the truth is as it relates to Clemens. But what I can tell you from my legal experience is that it is very common for clients not to want to take responsibility for bad things that they do. That you can tell them all the bad consequences that could happen if they don't settle a lawsuit or don't take a plea, but it won't get them to budge.Strangely enough, often the most accomplished people are the ones who are the most resistant to fessing up.
Many clients would prefer to pursue a possible legal path of destruction for themselves and their families because they want to blame others instead of admit the truth. At the end of the day, they tell themselves and others that it was their lawyer who did them wrong, or they were screwed over the government, a jury, a vast conspiracy or the media--anything other than the pain of admitting fault.

And sometimes, clients are actually telling the truth and get caught up in a legal system that can brutalize the innocent.
If Clemens ever went to jail, he would go as someone who theoretically was being wronged by the system, instead of as an admitted steroid cheat. (Unless, of course, he eventually says he took steroids).
Ultimately, if you had to fire every client who didn't tell you the truth or follow your advice, you would have few clients. From Presidents to paupers, people follow self-delusional and self-destructive paths every day because they loath admitting the entire truth to themselves, their attorneys, their families and the world at large.
Actually, it seems to me that Rusty Hardin has the perfect client. Why fire a client who believes in publicly defending himself and has loads of cash?
Previously at FanHouse:
Everything Roger Clemens




