Keeping Harvey Weinstein’s Secrets, Part 2: Gloria Allred

I am conflicted that this episode potentially undermines one of the few well known figures supporting the incredibly tough cause of women's rights. It seems that The Daily attempted to shed light on the other side of the coin by saying : "perhaps she ain't a saint" while the Netflix documentary says "she is a living hero".

This is a powerful story & so disturbing. I reached out to Gloria Allred last year. I was doing a ton of interviews with rape survivors and rape trauma experts. I wanted to interview Allred. She replied quickly, wished me luck, and said she was too busy fighting for women to get involved in any other projects.

I was incredibly unsettled after listening to Part 2, but heartened by most of the comments here. Ten minutes on the phone with any legal ethicist would have put this story in appropriate context. "Secret settlements" are also known as "settlements"; defendants aren't writing substantial checks without any upside and it is entirely appropriate for a lawyer to secure one for her client, assuming the client is advised about all aspects of granting the release. We can have a broader discussion about whether NDAs should be enforceable in sexual assault cases, but that is a completely different discussion than, is this lawyer bad or a phoney (??) because she got her client a substantial settlement 13 years ago, whereas now, under completely different circumstances, she's bring public suit on behalf of other clients. Can she even defend her conduct here, given her obligations of confidentiality? And then in the last two minutes you add, "Oh yeah these are really standard." ??? This was super, super slimy and not at all what I expect from the NY Times, or these journalists (whose work I have otherwise loved - reading the book now).

Such a disturbing but entertaining podcast. Love the cinematic music and interview sound bytes, really added impact to the awful truths about how these lawyers operate. They betrayed the people who trusted and relied on them, a heinous crime in and of itself.

One reprobate representing another. Clearly these people have no moral foundation as part of the moneyed elite of Hollywood. They really make me sick.

I normally love The Daily. Not today. This episode showed such a complete misunderstanding of the issues and was such a clearly unwarranted attack on a woman for doing her job, it was astounding. I know you want to sell books but if you are going to portray yourselves as experts on these issues, you should take more care to not be so blatantly incorrect. How many people is it necessary to crucify? Have you spoken to any advocates for women or plaintiff's side employment lawyers?

I am having a hard time believing that, according to the victim interviewed on this show, Gloria Allred told her to "say nice things about Harvey Weinstein". I think what probably happened is that Allred, as part of the agreement (which netted the victim $150K), instructed her client to not disparage Weinstein in the media, or elsewhere. In fact, the victim, as part of the agreement is not to have said anything, not one word, about Weinstein, especially to the media. The fact that the victim chose this time to break said legal agreement is certainly her choice. I, for one, do not see the shattering news that Ms. Kantor and Twohey seem to be portraying. I am not "wowed" by the actions of Ms. Allred, who, it is well-known, handles sexual harrassment/assault cases against famous perpetrators. If what Ms. Allred was doing was unethical, where is the state bar's investigation? As a matter of fact, kudos to Ms. Allred. Swing and a miss, NY Times/The Daily. Not buying it for one minute.

Being close to someone who has gone through a NDA. Where it was an assault to the point of knocking the person out and leaving ligature marks. My concern it that justice is allowing predators to hide under her skirts. What about the next young person taken in by this powerful person? Now he’s had a finance hit and isn’t going to want that again, how is he going to deal with the next time he dose this? His assault was out of control, how is he going to control himself? It is grandiose thinking on the part of the law that just taking a financial hit will stop him from hurting someone else. The social network and legal documentation that could of protected the next person is gauged and now the next young person is walking into a dangerous situation with this person without any way to gain knowledge of his behavior. This is a dangerous legal allowance especially for battery. I get that lawyers need to be payed but the wrong people are paying the real cost.

It should be illegal for a contract to require suppression of law-breaking. I don’t understand how any contract can be valid when it requires hiding assault, pedophilia, or human trafficking (as we’ve seen recently). Or say employment contracts that might require hiding evidence or knowledge of toxic dumping, etc. How is this allowed by our laws?

Stop calling NDAs "secret settlements." They are common in all forms of lawsuits & there is absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about them. Seriously disappointed in this convoluted spin of a podcast, especially after such a great part 1 the day before. How is it weird (or unethical as this podcast infers) for a lawyer to remind a client who signed an NDA that coming forward afterwards could result in the client being sued & having to pay bak their original settlement (plus add'l legal fees, etc.). All lawyers advise their clients about the potential monetary ramifications of going to court. It's also very presumptuous for this particular client to compare her experience w Allred from 13 years ago to today. Every lawsuit has their own unique specifics.

Without a NDA of some type more victims/plaintiffs will be forced to trial and invasive cross-examination. While profitable for the media reporting on the trial, it would be embarrassing and painful for the victims and their friends and family. If the jury decides against them they would owe their attorneys costs of suit (although likely never sought) and maybe owe the defendant it’s costs (not fees). The option of a NDA should not be taken away. It allows the parties to avoid the foregoing and much more.

I appreciate that this piece highlights a problem in our legal system at a systemic level and underlines its connection to the advancement of women's rights/equality across time. I truly commend Ashley for coming forward and breaking her silence to help other victims and our community as a whole. As she, the NYT journalists, the book "She Said" highlight: secret settlements can perpetuate power differentials and create an environment conducive to sexual harassment. At the same time i feel like we might be going about this in a half-thought-out way in this episode. We are pinning a lot on Gloria Allred. Highlighting her harsh words on the phone call in NY - was that important to include to help listeners understand the injustice in secret settlements? Or was it just interesting in a "gossipy" way? It seems understandable that Gloria's firm would not be able to speak publicly on this case because of the secrecy of the settlement. Her firm has a lot to lose if they were to break it; highlighting again that the system is that is stifling truth and progress. I understand everything isn't black or white, but is the goal of this piece to attack Allred's character or to highlight the injustice of secret settlements? And if it is to highlight an injustice, do we need to tear Allred down to get the point across? All that being said, I love this podcast and the important discussions that it inspires. Thank you for continuing to amplify unheard voices.

What an amazing episode you guys! Thank you so much for all your hard work.

Lawyers are trained to argue both sides of issues and their most important oath is to represent their client zealously. That applies to whichever client retains them in a private practice unless there is an outright conflict under the code of ethics. This seems like a bit of a hatchet job in that women lawyer are implicitly supposed to stay on only one side of the fence or face public shaming? I'm a feminist and a lawyer myself, but if a former client suggested breaking an NDL, I would likely advise against it. Whether there should be such stringent NDLs in sexual harassment is a separate issue. Male lawyers, and lawyers in general go from being Legal Aid attorneys to white collar attorneys representing Wall Streeters. Why should women lawyers just be women's lawyers. That is sexist too.

I exclusively represent employees/plaintiffs in employment cases and the vast majority of employment cases end in settlement with confidentiality clauses. I explain the confidentiality clauses with clients and it is up to them to decide whether they want to sign them. I also explain to clients the costs and benefits of the alternative, which is litigation. Listeners, readers, and reporters who decry "NDAs" need to know that litigation is taxing financially and emotionally. Lawyers representing employees are often from small firms or solo practitioners and can't take every case on contingency or on a pro bono basis. Litigating a case, even if it's a good case, can take years and cost tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to the financial strain, litigation in federal or state court is emotionally difficult for clients. Conservative courts also make litigation challenging. At least in employment cases, some laws allow for "fee shifting," meaning the employer would be responsible for attorneys fees if the employee prevailed. However, in the Weinstein cases, some of the victims were not employees. If they can't argue they were employees, the alternative would be to sue Weinstin under a tort theory, which is often more difficult and does not include fee shifting. The NYTand other reporters have done an excellent job covering the #MeToo movement and the Weinstein case. Nonetheless, my clients are not being "paid off." They are making an informed decision.

I have two questions about yesterday's episode and today's episode. First question: Yesterday, the reporters indicated Weinstein paid Bloom "a $50,000 retainer and $895/hour on top of that." Typically one pays a retainer and then the hourly fee gets drawn out of the retainer. To do so otherwise would be highly unusual. Was there an upfront fee in addition to the hourly fee? Second question: Today, the reporters said victims often settle because their damages, if they go to trial, would be capped at "a couple of hundred thousand dollars." I am aware of limits on medical malpractice general damages, but not of limits on general damages in other contexts. Is this a thing in some states? Thanks for any follow-up in this regard.

Why are you making Gloria seem like a villain for advising a client to adhere to a legally binding NDA? She's trying to protect this woman from being sued. 13 years ago, a settlement probably was the best she could get. It's truly a shame but it's the truth. And of course her firm will deny working with her on the case, I'm sure they had to sign an NDA too! They also don't want to get sued! I normally think you guys absolutely nailed it but today it really felt like you were digging to have a story where there isn't one.

Mother and daughter working to silence Weinstein ? Seems very possible if not likely. Greed does terrible things to people.

It should be noted that Cliff Robertson took on Hollywood in the 1970's and NEVER worked again until Batman in the 1990's came out.

Here's what concerns me about both segments of this story: this predator (Weinstein) and the people who enabled him are only being found out because of (I'm guessing) hundreds if not thousands of man hours were spent reporting on this topic by top national journalists. I find it unlikely that these people are aberrations. Part of me wonders if they're the norm in these industries. How can we shine sunlight into the less sensational stories of abuse, corruption, etc.? There must be thousands of similar stories, thousands of similar victims, thousands of similar enablers.

Thank you for telling the truth.

Very disappointed in the podcast this morning. This was clearly a way to promote the "She Said" book by the reporters and gain popularity by slandering Allred. This should have been focused on the problems within our legal system rather than misleading the public and omitting crucial details about the case therefore painting Allred in a bad light. Lawyers are required to be silent if a NDA is signed and for that information to be omitted to the public, thus assuming that Allred kept this a secret is upsetting. Not impressed with this podcast.

Wow. It was obvious from yesterday that Lisa Bloom was a horrible person. Her mom might just take the cake. Bottom line is that Ms. Allred might have been getting the most for her clients from various perpetrators as the limits on suits are low. But if she is such a wealthy famous litigator, then where has her Bully Platform been to change the law to increase the penalties for RAPE??? And where is her action to create class action suits against Harvey Weinstein for future victims? The "where" is in the pocketbook of her business. She and her firm made a LOT more money "selling" secret settlements to victims at FORTY PERCENT of the payout than she would have with putting these MEN behind bars. I am male but have a wife and daughter and am appalled at the stories of today and yesterday. This is some of the best reporting ever. Thanks to the Daily for putting this out there. All the awards and accolades are NOT deserved by these shameless women.

Whoa, what a crazy read.

Please add playback speed controls!