Petrocelli was quite clear in his book, that the <BR>Goldman case against OJ would cost $$$$...and they had to help raise the fees. Could it be Thomas was running out of money---and the firm wouldn't represent him pro bono? They knew a loser case when they saw it...and didn't want to tarnish their reputation? Another consideration Petrocelli writes about in his book---how the OJ case would affect the firm. <P>I dunno...put two and two together, and I think it's obvious why they settled.