As a commenter noted last night, I haven’t posted anything about Mike Nifong being disbarred and removed from office as district attorney. I’m happy to see it happen; I just haven’t had anything to add to this point.

I do have a question now, though. Why did the university reach a legal settlement with the lacrosse players? On what grounds could Duke have been sued? Clearly, the university could have handled the matter better, but that’s not the same thing as being legally liable.

Some people here that I’ve talked to think it was just a move to avoid paying legal costs in case the players filed nuisance lawsuits, but an op-ed today in the Wall Street Journal
asserts that Duke had “legal exposure” in the case:

Duke University has just settled with the three students it treated so shamefully for an undisclosed, but given the university’s legal exposure, undoubtedly substantial sum.

So what, exactly, was the exposure? Lawyers, please help.

Update 6/20 9:09 AM: Durham in Wonderland blogger K.C. Johnson thinks the settlement protected the faculty from lawsuits:

Shortly thereafter, Paul Haagen, outgoing chair of the Academic Council, e-mailed other Council members to explain the settlement. The critical sentence: “As a result of the settlement, all faculty have been released from any claims of liability related to the lacrosse matter up through the date of the settlement (June 18, 2007).” While the Duke administration has been unwilling to hold a segment of its faculty to minimal standards of the profession, it seems that it was willing to use University funds to protect those same faculty members from legal action. From a tactical standpoint, the decision was a wise one by the Brodhead/Steel team—any lawsuit by the three families would have been a public relations nightmare for Duke.

Could you really sue the now-infamous Group of 88 for running an ad about “a social disaster”? Or specific professors for public statements about the case? I still don’t understand.