Lanny Davis explains Shannon Sharpe’s $10 million settlement offer – NBC Sports
2025-04-23T18:02:17Z
On Tuesday, attorney Lanny Davis disclosed during a media conference call that Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe offered “at least $10 million” to settle the claims made by the woman who sued Sharpe for sexual assault and other claim…
On Tuesday, attorney Lanny Davis disclosed during a media conference call that Hall of Fame tight end and media personality Shannon Sharpe offered “at least $10 million” to settle the claims made by the woman who sued Sharpe for sexual assault and other claims on Sunday.
In writing on the matter, I expressed my own opinion that, in the court of public opinion, it will be difficult to balance Sharpe’s strong assertion of innocence against his willingness to make an eight-figure settlement payment, and to share that information openly.
Davis objected to my characterization. He asked for an opportunity to respond. I told him to send a statement, and that I would consider posting it. He did. I did. And here’s what he sent:
“I strongly disagree with Mr. Florio’s opinion that Mr. Sharpe’s decision to pay [the plaintiff] who engaged in blackmail — a threat to publish private sexual activity unless she was paid substantial money — in any way infers that Mr. Sharpe was responsible for any wrongdoing and certainly does not change his belief (and mine as his attorney) that [the plaintiff] lied in her allegations in the complaint she filed and was responsible for an edited tape leaving a false impression of non-consensual sexual activity and she has refused to allow that tape to be examined by an independent expert to determine whether she made any editing or deletions in the original tape that she secretly made during sexual activity with Mr. Sharpe.
“In fact, Mr. Sharpe decided to pay the substantial blackmail money demanded by the [plaintiff] for the same reason why many many other innocent people subject to a blackmail threat decide, usually painfully, to pay the blackmailer for the same reasons [as] Mr. Sharpe, having absolutely nothing to do with any admission of wrongdoing: In Mr. Sharpe’s case as in the case of virtually all other similar subjects of blackmail, the reason [was] primarily to avoid public embarrassment for himself and his family and other adverse consequences to his life and reputation.
“I respectfully suggest that if Mr. Florio take the time to do fact reporting and interview many others who made the same decision as Mr. Sharpe to pay the blackmailer — and be able, based on fact reporting and not opinion writing, to demonstrate that most people who decide to pay blackmailers do so without the slightest implication of admitting to wrongdoing or any worry about personal wrongdoing. He may also decide, in his own reconsideration of this subject, that there was nothing inconsistent in my statement that Mr. Sharpe denied the lie that he did anything other than engage in consensual sex and that the tape secretly recorded by [the plaintiff] was incomplete, contained deletions or edits, to mislead the viewer into a conclusion that the sexual encounter was non-consensual. I am disappointed Mr. Florio omitted in his opinion piece my challenge to [the plaintiff] and her attorney that if they claim there was no such deletions or editing of her secretly recorded tape, then she should give her attorney permission to turn it over to a neutral, professional investigator to determine whether or not it was altered in any way.
“Thank you, Mr. Florio, for publishing my respectful strong disagreement with your opinions.”
Here’s my response.
1. You’re welcome.
2. As to the issue of the edited tape, Davis has an absolute right to obtain the video within the confines of the litigation. Rule 34 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure provides the power to do so. The public pressure to release the tape immediately seems to be, in my opinion, part of the effort to score a victory in the court of public opinion.
3. I practiced law for 18 years. I was involved in many negotiations regarding civil claims. Settlement discussions, in my experience, were always treated as confidential. I never had a client who wanted a settlement offer, whether made before or after suit was filed, to be disclosed publicly. I never represented a plaintiff in a case where the defendant disclosed a settlement offer publicly. Typically, those who would make a significant payment to settle a legal claim insist on confidentiality, in part because of the concern that this information could prompt others to try to score a quick and easy payday of their own.
4. My interpretation of the information from Davis was and is pretty simple. It will be hard for the average person to reconcile a loud insistence that the claim is false with an offer to pay at least $10 million to settle the case. And if Sharpe is indeed being blackmailed, there are ways to respond that would better mesh with the reasonably expected reaction to such a threat, in my view. He could have turned the matter over to the authorities. He could have filed a pre-emptive lawsuit. Offering at least $10 million — and then telling the world that at least $10 million was offered — makes it harder to thread the needle, in my opinion.
5. As to the invitation to “interview many others who made the same decision as Mr. Sharpe to pay the blackmailer,” it would be impossible to even begin to make a list. The goal is to pay the money so that the situation never comes to light. No one pays a blackmailer and then buys a billboard to announce that a blackmailer has been paid.
Regardless, the litigation will proceed. Davis confirmed on Tuesday that Sharpe will file a counterclaim. And people will draw whatever conclusions they choose, based on the aggressive claim of blackmail, the nonchalant admission of an eight-figure settlement offer, and any other allegations or facts that come to light until the matter concludes.
If/when the case goes to trial, the settlement offer will not be admissible evidence. Jury selection, however, will be even more delicate than usual, since it will be imperative that none of the prospective jurors blurt out in the presence of the others, “Yeah, I heard about the case. I heard he offered her $10 million.”
Auto-posted from news source
About The Author
