[Skallagrim]

Law doesnt quite work that way, LL. It is generally "unethical" for a lawyer to solicit clients, so you cant have the PPA going around looking for plaintiffs.

What is ethical is A) having a list of lawyers who are PPA members so plaintiffs and defendants, if they choose, can have some insight about who to hire, and MORE IMPORTANTLY B) having a central team of lawyers and experts who can assist any local counsel when these issues arise in a case.

A while back an unsung poker hero initiated a lawsuit in NC to get poker declared a game of skill. Only one prominent poker player/writer went to help him out (Roy Cooke, to his credit). A search of this forum will reveal a couple threads discussing that opinion and, most importantly, HOW THE LITIGATION COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER HAD THE PLAINTIFF'S BEEN ABLE TO GET MORE HELP.

Thats where the PPA should come in. Whenever a "skill v. chance" case comes up the PPA litigation support team should be able to provide sample arguments/motions/briefs and coordinate expert witnesses in poker and statistics who can present the basic proof I came up with (and also posted in this forum) months ago and expand and verify it. Once a victory is obtained anywhere, the ball starts rolling our way, and we move dramatically forward.

As an attorney I know that the biggest difficulty in these situations is getting the right argument presented with the right experts. Usually a client and an attorney have no way of funding this kind of effort and so go into court with one hand tied behind their back(s). That is what the PPA could easily remedy by having the argument and witnesses set up and ready to go, hopefully at PPA expense, but at a minimum the expense to the client should be just expenses (no expert or additional attorney fees).

I have spoke with TE about this, and hope that the PPA leadership sees this as an important PPA asset.

Skallagrim