Meanwhile, X Corp., clinging to the anchor of justice and provisions in the California Business and Professions Code, demands the disgorgement of the contentious $90 million, adjusting only for a reasonable hourly fee.
The Ethical Quagmire in Legal Practice
Wachtell’s alleged dereliction of duty, disregard for professional conduct, and evasion of California law forms the crucible of X Corp.’s grievance, underpinning its persistent refusal to yield to arbitration.
The initial lawsuit spirals into a whirlwind of ethical questions as X Corp. scrutinizes the propriety of Wachtell’s conduct, especially given the absence of a preliminary agreement outlining a success fee and amidst allegations of brazen financial indulgence by departing Twitter executives.
Counter-Arguments and Tensions Rise
Wachtell counters, portraying X Corp.’s pursuit of equitable remedies—restoration, fee forfeiture, and disgorgement—as a veiled strategy to sidestep arbitration. They argue that the plea to recoup the ostensible excess fee catapults the dispute from the realm of equitable restitution to the decidedly legal territory of monetary damages.
Traversing the High Seas of Corporate Legal Drama
X Corp.’s lawsuit paints Wachtell as an opportunistic entity in the eleventh hour of Twitter’s executive transitions, capitalizing on the chaotic expenditure and extending unwarranted largesse towards preferred law firms.
