Public relations as litigation tool in cases involing charities: Robertson v. Princeton University
The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog had this interesting post on the Robertson v. Princeton website, a classic example of litigation public relations. It seems to me that trust/probate litigation involving charities is especially ripe for this tactic. By the way, it should also be noted that in a sharp break from prior law, under Florida's new trust code settlors of charitable trusts will now have standing to sue the charitable beneficiaries of their trusts under F.S. 736.0405(3).
Back to the main point of this blog post. Here's a sampling of what the Robertson family website has to say in their war-of-words against Princeton:
Note to self: when it comes to litigation PR, be the first mover.
Back to the main point of this blog post. Here's a sampling of what the Robertson family website has to say in their war-of-words against Princeton:
In a subsequent amended complaint, filed in New Jersey Superior Court on November 12, 2004, the plaintiffs expanded their charges, alleging that Princeton has:
- Wrongfully spent more than $100 million of the Robertson Foundation’s money on programs, projects, salaries, bonuses, buildings, equipment and “overhead” costs that have little or nothing to do with the Robertson Foundation mission.
- Engaged in an fraudulent cover-up scheme, involving several Princeton administrations, to hide the improper spending.
- Similarly misused other donors’ gifts in what appears to be a systemic university-wide “pattern and practice of diverting [donations] from their intended purpose.”
In January 2006, the estimate of more than $100 million in improper spending was more than doubled, to more than $207 million (nearly $500 million in 2006 dollars).Not to be out gunned on the PR front, this is a sampling of Princeton's rebuttal:
Today’s briefs show that the University paid many costs that it could have charged to the Robertson Foundation under the Foundation’s Certificate of Incorporation. As a result, the Foundation was charged some $235 million less than it might have been—an amount greater than all of the “overcharges” alleged by plaintiffs combined.Clearly the PR battle going on here is an integral aspect of the case . . . and both sides seem to believe success in the courtroom/settlement conference room will turn in large part on who wins the PR battle. I also think that the first side to realize PR would play a large role in this case probably had the first-mover advantage (based on the clippings excerpted in the Robertson family website, I would guess they were probably the first to go on the PR offensive).
Note to self: when it comes to litigation PR, be the first mover.
