Law And More

Engagement Goes to the Dogs - Finance Sues for Return of $100K Engagement Ring

The relationship between Ryan Strasser, associate at Troutman Sanders, and Sarah Jones Dickens, unemployed, seemed to sour when three dogs became part of it.

Strasser had adopted two dogs. Dickens already had one. Where they co-habituated became cramped. So chronicles MarketWatch.

The two split up 11 months after becoming engaged to marry. 

Not at all an unusual story, is it.

Why it has made national business and well as legal news is that Dickens refused to return the engagement ring. It originally cost about $100k. Now its market value is about $125k. She also refuses to return the two dogs to her former soulmate.

Strasser, who took out a personal loan at 5.95% annual interest, has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington D.C. for return of the ring. In that venue, the "gift" only becomes complete when the wedding ceremony is performed.

This is also major news because the complaint is full of personal details about the nature of the relationship and how it began and continued to unravel. Some refer to the tone as that of a soap opera.

While the nation might be amused, Strasser might not have the last laugh. After all, he is a lawyer in a brandname law firm.

This personalizing of a lawsuit can reflect badly on not only him as lawyer but also his firm.

After all, clients go to brandname law firms for solutions for serious problems. Do they want to know that a "clown" is employed there and might be assigned to their account?

Sure, Strasser might be enraged - and deeply hurt. However, in filing this kind of lawsuit, the joke could be on him for years. And, he might not have any shot at partner status at Troutman Sanders.

Attention is the currency of the 21^st century. Jane Genova helps you get it for products, services, points of view, causes, branding, careers after-50, and college admission. Free consultation janegenova374@gmail.com

 

Law Firm, NW Suburbs of Chicago, IL - Marketing Assistant

Details

Court/Police Report, Ellingham, IL

Details

Fallout from Kavanaugh Chaos - SCOTUS Reschedules Review Decision on CA Public Nuisance Law (Sherwin-Williams' Future in Play)

Increasingly, it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will be operating with eight members. The odds seem against Brett Kavanaugh's being confirmed as the next justice. 

Therefore, reports Tony Mauro in Law.com, justices seem to be shelving the review of cases which might result in 4-4 ties. So, it's no surprise that on September 20th, SCOTUS removed from its review conference the controversial cases about public nuisance in California. They have been rescheduled for a future unspecified date.

They are:

"The Sherwin-Williams Company v. California," and

"ConAgra Grocery Products v. California."

There has been intense lobbying for SCOTUS to review these.

Both companies were convicted in a bench trial of creating a public nuisance through lead paint. If the conviction stands, they will have to pay funds to fix the health hazard of lead paint in older housing stock in designated locations in CA.

When children ingest the residue of lead paint, that lead in their blood can result in medical problems such as cognitive impairment. Yet, because of the shortage of affordable housing, those buildings must be retained. Otherwise the number of homeless families could surge. In New York City public housing, recently more than a 1,000 children tested positive for lead in their blood.

Actually, that's a small part of what the consequences could be if the convictions are upheld. The CA Supreme Court refused to review the cases. The CA appeals court upheld the convictions but lowered the amount due for the "fix."

The bigger fallout could be that other locations in CA and other states, counties, and cities decide to file class action public nuisance lawsuits loosely modeled on the successful CA one. It is not unthinkable that such litigation could be The Next Tobacco or The Next Asbestos. 

Sherwin-Williams, obviously a deep pocket, is especially vulnerable.

The Wall Street Journal outed an internal memo from 1900 indicating the hazards of lead. Yet, a few years later the corporation promoted lead paint in advertising. That's the kind of "smoking gun" which, for example, other state attorneys general could leverage in class action public nuisance lead paint litigation. 

Could Sherwin-Williams and other former lead paint manufacturers/marketers wind up going bankrupt fighting myriad such lawsuits both in CA and throughout the U.S.? Could be. But they could avoid that fate the way tobacco companies had through negotiating an analogue to the Tobacco Master Settlement. The tobacco industry paid billions but it survived.

Meanwhile, aggressive plaintiff lawyers may have decided to not wait for SCOTUS to review or not review the public nuisance cases and then to issue a ruling. Instead they can sell this kind of litigation to state attorneys general and others.

Those state attorneys general who initiate such a lawsuit in the public interest can enhance their brand - and political futures.

They can position and package themselves as heroes of the people.

In Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse set in play the infamous lead paint litigation which went through two trials. There was one mistrial. And one conviction of Sherwin-Williams and two other defendants. Several years after the latter, the RI Supreme Court threw out the whole case.

However, Sherwin-Williams, represented by law firm Jones Day, had to pay years and years of legal fees. The value of its stock went on a roller-coaster. Currently, Whitehouse is a U.S. Senator. 

Investors in corporations saddled with a lead paint legacy have to be aware of the litigation risks. Filings of lawsuits don't have to wait until SCOTUS makes or doesn't make its move.

Full Disclosure: I blogged the RI class action lead paint public nuisance second trial (11/1/05-2/22/06). 

Ghostwriting on matters of litigation, regulation, legislation, and the business of law. Also, sponsored content welcome. For a complimentary consultation please contact janegenova374@gmail.com'

 

Sweet Jesus, Save Us from All The Good Wives

The Good Wife role has become out-of-date.

The expiration date on its shelf life happened when fictional Alicia stood next to fictional Peter at the kick-off of that popular television series "The Good Wife."

More importantly, politics has become too volatile and downright crazy for anyone to pay attention to what wifey says about hubby.

So, we can only smirk when we bear witness to the tearful affirmation of Ashley Estes Kavanaugh. She lets us know that Brett has not only character but heart. Here are more details from the Daily Mail. 

An analogous situation is the loyalty Julie Chen is demonstrating. In public, she is 100% supportive of her hubby Les Moonves, cast-out of CBC Paradise because of alleged sexual misconduct.

While some might consider it noble of Chen to stick by Moonves, that has nothing to do with much.

Moonves stands alone in the court of law (if it comes to that after the two law firms make their report to the CBS board) and the court of public opinion (he's already focusing on brand rehab).

Let's face it: Marriage means less today than it had when Hillary Clinton stood by her man during his first campaign for the U.S. Presidency - and later during the Lewinsky meltdown. After all, the U.S. President is a man who has been divorced twice. 

Since marriage is no longer sacred, the spousal "endorsement" has lost plenty of its former value.

Takeaway for politics: Leave wifey out of the bad whatever.

Attention is the currency of the 21^st century. Jane Genova helps you get it for products, services, points of view, causes, branding, careers after-50, and college admission. Free consultation janegenova374@gmail.com

David Boies Turns Les Moonves Down

It probably won't be until the end of January that the CBS board of directors will hear the report by law firms Debevoise & Plimpton and Covington & Burling.

They were brought in to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations that the former chief executive officer Les Moonves behaved in sexually inappropriate ways. 

However, reports William D. Cohan in Vanity Fair, Moonves is already in the early stages of doing rehab on his brand - if that's possible.

He has hired brandname restoration fixer-upper firm HL Strategic Solutions.

Also, in addition to having famous lawyer Dan Petrocelli represent him he also tried to hire Superlawyer David Boies. The latter turned him down. 

The issue is: Will Moonves be doomed to has-been hell like other alleged sexual predators such as Harvey Weinstein or will he be able to try to put together a Next like Roger Ailes?

In the book "Fire and Fury," Michael Wolff described how Ailes, also accused of sexual misconduct, was planning his next act. He had been conferring with Peter Thiel and others about setting up a conservative cable network to compete with Fox. But first he had to wait out his non-compete contract. Meanwhile, he died of an accident in his home. 

What Moonves also has to focus on is money. If the report finds he should be fired for cause, he won't get much or any of the $120 million exit package. If the report leaves him wiggle room then he will enter binding arbitration about how much he can receive. 

Not that Moonves is on the verge of bankruptcy. As Cohan points out in the article, he owns about $200 million in stock and has more than $600 million as a nest egg.

But, as Ailes knew, it takes money to start making money again. Thiel could have financed Ailes' new venture. For a major comeback, Moonves could certainly leverage that $120 million.

For now, Moonves has to lay low. That's always smart public relations. But, he can't be saying much, given that the investigation by the two law firms is still in process.

Attention is the currency of the 21^st century. Jane Genova helps you get it for products, services, points of view, causes, branding, careers after-50, and college admission. Free consultation janegenova374@gmail.com

No Newsflash - Stigma Associated with Addiction/Mental Illness and Not Only in Legal Sector

Do you want your bet the ranch litigation managed by a lawyer recovering from alcohol abuse/addiction to heroin or clinical depression?

Of course not.

Neither do you want your personal reputation restoration handled by a public relations expert who now has two months opioid-free or four months without an anxiety attack.

Yet, there are surveys if stigma is associated with addiction and mental illness. On Law.com, Patrick Krill discusses that reality. Like the results are newsflashes. 

Perhaps the former addict's or depressive's family is sympathetic. But maybe not. After all, putting up with those problems is no day at the beach. 

Family aside, the rest of our capitalist society wants perfect performance, on demand. We demand the best professional. And "best" includes not having been impaired in the past or the present with addictions and sundry types of mental illness. If that professional can't cope with life without help from substances or tumbles into the abyss of depression, what does that indicate about the ability to navigate obstacles occurring in work?

Before Oprah's ethos of openness, everyone "knew" to keep those negatives under wraps. Heck, that's why the co-founders of the 12-step programs struggled to ensure that membership would be and stay anonymous. Within those 12-step programs, to further ensure confidentiality there are special groups for professionals, ranging from lawyers to medical doctors. 

During my career as a full-time employee in the Fortune50, I paid for therapy for clinical depression out of my own pocket. I didn't risk any payment evidence. I quit medication if I had to take a hiring drug test. And, I made it my business to present a perky persona.

When I entered a 12-step program for alcohol abuse it was out of town. I maintained a low profile.

Self-employed for decades, I now choose to be more open. It isn't that I hope to be a role model who motivates others to manage mental illness and cope without substances. It's just that it consumes too much energy to conceal entirely my genetic predisposition to clinical depression and to create elaborate cover stories why I don't drink.

What the articles on mental illness and addictions in professional life ignore is that many pull it together, on their own. They have that moment of clarity that all that is ruining their lives. They make the behavior changes to eliminate the worst of it. And they go on with their careers and more stable personal lives. 

Those who choose or can't pull it together probably have to suffer the consequences of their behavior. And that's that. America has been called the land of second, third, and fourth chances. In real life that rarely is so. In many ways, the success track is as rigid as in most of England. Some can reboard after derailing, but not all.

Takeaway: Handle your mental and addiction addictions discreetly and in ways that will be effective. The latter means researching what really does work.

Attention is the currency of the 21^st century. Jane Genova helps you get it for products, services, points of view, causes, branding, careers after-50, and college admission. Free consultation janegenova374@gmail.com

 

Congressional Digest, D.C. - Pro/Con Editor

Details

KPMG, Various Locations - Business Writer

Details

D.C. Bar, Washington D.C. - Digital Content

Details