Report comment

I'll go along with the "honest pillar" argument. I'll even swallow level of benefits gained.

What I can't accept is his reason for getting the no disclosure clause in his litigation settlement. Davy-Chieseman or no, common sense raises the question if all was hunkeydory why it was thought necessary. The reason can only be that he knew it was a bad show and that he should have handed himself in. Had he done so, he might still be in business.

I get the impression of a nice/kind/charming man, whose clients liked him and trusted him and wanted to show their affection and regard. I also get the feeling that he was rather greedy.