The SEC has demanded a jury trial in its high-profile lawsuit against Bank of America for misleading shareholders about huge bonus payments ahead of its merger with Merrill Lynch. The trial date has now been pushed back to March 2010.

One legal observer called the SEC's demand for a jury trial "brilliant" because a "jury will be so more favorably inclined toward the SEC than the bank and [BofA CEO] Ken Lewis." Perhaps, but given that a recent poll found the SEC to be viewed more unfavorably than even the Internal Revenue Service, this is debatable.

I think the stronger rationale for demanding a jury trial was probably hit on by New York lawyer Brad Simon, who told the NY Post that the SEC's move was likely geared toward avoiding U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff to the greatest extent possible. As discussed here, Rakoff has skewered the SEC in its efforts to settle the case and refused to approve a proposed settlement, calling the arguments supporting it "puzzling," "vague" and "so at war with common sense."

Simon astutely points out that "there was no way they were going to opt for a bench trial with this judge in light of the ruling that he made totally eviscerating their attempt to settle."