OK, this whole mess has been intriguing to watch, but Peters' statement the past night really irked me. The more I read, the more I'm convinced he's taking these people for a ride for the sake of his own ego. I want to address his comments as per his enumerated paragraphs:-
1) He says that he's in "deep talks" with a top twenty firm of lawyers. I'm calling bull on this.
Firstly, no firm of that stature takes on a pro bono case where the likelihood is that they will lose, because the time involved is time taken away from other chargeable work.
Secondly, since they don't really have a case, the thrust of any legal advice would primarily be to cease production. This is even less of a reason to take a case on pro bono for a corporation because there wouldn't be an publicity involved. Personally speaking, I would never take on a case where the client insisted on litigating in spite of my advice because the consequence of doing so is that clients inevitably come back and complain afterwards that they lost and express unhappiness for the way you've handled the case. It's just not worth the hassle, especially on a pro bono basis. Also, to act in the course of litigation in spite of your own advice would make the client liable for massive costs in the event of loss and one has a professional obligation to ensure the client's best interests are served in terms of your advice, even if the client doesn't like what they're hearing.
Thirdly, from my perspective, it doesn't take so long to get an answer as to whether or not a firm will act for you when there is an element of urgency involved (the treat of an injunction and financial difficulty). You explain the case and/or the send the papers to the firm. I personally would have looked them over and immediately given an indication of whether or not it was something that was worth taking on. Peters says a firm wants to act, but he said that days ago, now apparently they are still in "deep talks". Something about that just doesn't sound right to me. Either the firm agrees to act or it doesn't...and if it does, either the Axanar corporate entity agrees to the terms of representation or it doesn't. There is no negotiation.
Fourthly, pro bono work is designed for the needy and underprivileged. Axanar is a corporation, not a charity. It's extremely rare for a corporate entity to be represented pro bono. Basically it seems to me that in order to stand a chance of being taken on they'd have to be a not for profit corporation. Well, the fact is that this is up in the air due to Peters' own statements and the merchandising, What's more, it's one of the issues in the litigation. I would have thought by now a firm would have taken a view on the not for profit angle, and even if it concluded that it was a not for profit entity, the corporation still have to have a case thereafter.
Finally, what kind of egomaniac must Peters be to calling his tin pot firm a "high profile defendant"? Laughable remark. Nobody outside of Trekkie fandom has even heard of them!
