There's a lot of criticism of the Seham law firm on here that is just not relevant to the ALPA/DPA issue.

A lawyer is a hired gun and that is it. They don't have any allegiance to one side or another outside of a professional relationship and they're not supposed to. It is a lawyer's job to lay out possible legal courses of action and give an honest appraisal in general terms of their chances of success. They then take marching orders from their client as they should. Clients often have unrealistic expectations. Provided their attorney has given them his best appraisal of their chances, that attorney is not acting inappropriately by pursuing the course of action they desire.

Seham has clients who complain about the bill. Show me a lawyer who doesn't.

A lot of this talk seems to be informed by what I think is a misunderstanding of how lawyers use the legal system. USAPA may be in pursuit of one course of action in the legal system with another (possibly more important) ulterior motive. Isn't USAPA's primary objective to prevent the Nic award from being implemented? In fairness you have to recognize the status quo of the USAPA situation as a success of sorts. I'm sure they realize they have an uphill battle against unfavorable odds. If they were so informed prior to beginning their current undertaking, Seham was not acting inappropriately by following their marching orders.

A lot of straw men getting attacked on both sides of this issue.