Here is a very shortened version of the closing arguments in Gillispie's/UK's lawsuit. Defendant goes first during closing because Gillispie bears the burden of proof. (It will be assumed that Gillispie is the plaintiff and UK the defendant even though I believe UK's lawsuit filed in Kentucky is the proper place for the lawsuit.)

UK will stipulate the memorandum of understanding was a contract. There is no dispute about that. UK will then argue that it was Billy Gillispie, and not UK, who breached said contract. UK will point out that the memorandum of understanding expressly states that a more detailed employment contract will be completed in the future and the execution will occur at ".... the earliest possible date." On the second page of the contract, it states that the contract is "contingent" upon ".....executing an employment contract..." and said process will be mutually concluded "within 60 calendar days of your start date." UK will then argue that Gillispie breached this contract (memorandum of understanding) when he failed in good faith to execute a rather routine and more detailed employment contract. They will point out that they sign every coach to a similar contract and no coach has ever refused to sign said contract. Gillispie, however, refused to and nearly two years after the memorandum of understanding he still had not. UK will explain the need to have a more detailed contract to ensure their coaches conduct themselves in a way that does not embarrass the university. They will tell the jury:

Why did Gillispie refuse to execute the more detailed contract? Because he wanted to behave however he wanted to. Billy Gillispie breached the contract; not UK. He was the one who refused to execute the more detailed employment contract in direct violation of the memorandum of understanding. Once you determine that he was the one who breached the contract you mark the jury instruction here, sign it and you get to go home. It is that simple. Moreover, if Gillispie had signed the employment contract like any person acting in good faith would have, UK would have had a character clause in that more detailed contract. You've heard a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that he would have been in violation of the character clause. It doesn't matter whether we were happy with his performance on the court. He breached the contract and UK had every right to fire him without any further payments.

Gillispie's attorney will argue that Gillispie has won multiple coaching awards and he was fired, after 2 seasons, because he didn't win enough for UK. All this talk of drinking, women, interviews, conduct off the court, treatment of players, etc is a smoke screen. We all know that Gillispie would still be the coach of UK today if he had won more games. They never would have fired him based upon the evidence of conduct they have presented if he had won the National Championship or coached UK to the Final Four, etc. He coached UK and worked all the time to make UK better. He's sorry he didn't win more. He worked night and day and he wishes more than anybody that UK would have won more games. But he lived up to the contract he signed. He didn't promise to win a certain amount of games. UK had every right to fire him for not winning enough games but they don't have the right not to pay him what they contracted to pay him if he was fired.