Law And More

$1.67 B Verdict Against Abbott: Yet another instance of southern-fried performance art?

Trial work is theatre.  And putting on a good show means having the audience, that is, the jury down cold.  That might have been what WilmerHale's William Lee didn't do or didn't bother to do in a Texas courtroom on Monday.  His client Abbott lost. 

Could this be yet another instance of southern-fried performance art or the lack of it.  In Mississippi a Jackson jury turned in a $7 million lead paint personal injury verdict against Sherwin-Williams ["Pollard v SHW"].  You can bet the plaintiff attorney knew exactly what he was doing.  None of that cerebral stuff.  Folksy.  Sin and punishment.  Cadences from the Good Book.  That was his second recent big win.

In the deconstruction of the $1.67 billion verdict against Abbott Labs, Zusha Ellinson of THE RECORDER notes how Lee presented a dry argument, not a fire and brimstone plea for justice and retribution.  Incidentally, as Ellinson reports, when addressing the jury, "his arms were crossed." 

In his book "Murder by Family," Kent Whitaker says that the prosecutor who won the death penalty against his son actually hammered his fist and broke into tears.  That trial was set in Texas.

Quaint - THE AMERICAN LAWYER still refers to "elite law firm"

Is there such an entity as "an elite law firm" - any more.  And would the managing partner feel comfortable having that label applied?  The corporate clients would probably have some explaining to do to the powers-that-be in central purchasing.

Yet, THE AMERICAN LAWYER still uses the phrase.  In its announcement of the A-List Rankings, the publication informs us that the list, which it started in 2003:

"aims to measure and quantify the qualities that define an elite law firm, making an effort to look beyond profits."

Madoff Defense Attorney Ira Sorkin - What Was He Thinking?

Along with that buzz about that unusual 150-year sentence for Bernard Madoff, there is growing questioning of his attorney Ira Sorkin's performance.  His client didn't seem to catch any breaks.

If Ruth Madoff, who's down to her last $2.5 million, is the cagey cookie she seems to be, she could launch a huge lawsuit against Sorkin for malpractice.  Given that Sorkin probably doesn't welcome that publicity, he is likely to settle for enough to keep Ruth in the lifestyle she had come to love.

Downturn a Terrible Thing to Waste - Pay Cuts Snow Ball

Just like all unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways, every business leverages a crisis like this downturn in its own way. 

Some are using it to attract prize laterals.  Some to lease increased square footage at reduced rates in mid-Manhattan.  And some, of course, are making this economic situation an opportunity to achieve cost-reductions.  Manpower is the most expensive asset in a professional services firm.  So, as Gina Passarella reports in THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER, more and more law firm are implementing pay cuts.

Are these reductions in compensation necessary?  Probably not in all cases.  But a downturn is a terrible thing to waste.  Few firms are going to miss out on this unique opportunity to save money.

RI AG Patrick Lynch - A book is the price of entry

Yesterday, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch held a media conference on lead remediation of 600 low-income residential units.  That's being paid for with funds Dupont contributed in an agreement that Lynch oversaw.  In exchange, the company was not a defendant in the now-legendary RI lead paint public nuisance trial II.  There was much to be gained from celebrating fixing a health hazard.  For that Lynch risked the controversy over the Dupont money that flowed out of state to a Boston hospital having nothing to do with lead hazards.  The issue was raised.  Lynch seemed to handle it. 

Isn't this a public relations pro's dream of a client: Someone who can tough out controversy and take risks?  But Lynch probably doesn't need all that much guidance from us pros.  I have followed his career for almost four years.  In my communications judgment, he seems to have a golden gut for the right moves.  He put in play that RI lead paint II.  It didn't work out as planned.  Had it, he would have acquired plenty of reputational capital. But there he was yesterday, making lemonade out of a lemon which could have soured a less astute pol's career.

Just recently Lynch finished up his year serving as head of the National Association of Attorneys General.  Brilliantly, he made his mission protecting children online by educating their parents.  He called it the "Year of the Child."  During that year the Internet became the medium for the young.  And just as the parents of us Baby Boomers fretted about our new medium TV, parents of digital natives wring their hands about world of online uncertainty.

Tall, youthful, with Irish good looks, Lynch stands out.  "Who is that guy?" one twenty-something security analyst asked me at the RI lead paint II.   

A recommendation for this RI leader: It's time for a book.  It's the price of entry in politics.  The focus?  On decisions, crisis, and resets.  

Flight from Ruden McClosky - Grass Is Greener

Those who can, run - from Ruden McClosky.  Earlier this year it cut two attorneys and 18 staff.  This is far worse.

In DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW, Alana Roberts reports that the law firm "has imposed a 9 percent pay cuts on its associates and non-equity partners and informed its equity partners that they are not likely to receive the holdbacks of 18 percent of their pay."  As a result, you got it: The flight to greener and hopefully more secure positions at other law firms.

Clearly the trauma is not over in the law profession.  During the boom the industry bulked up in hiring  hiring and tended to overleverage.

RI - That Dupont money "sad case of pragmatism triumphing over principle," Legal Journalist

Yesterday, in a press conference Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse rolled out the $6.7 million lead remediation program for low-income areas.  The funding came from the agreement between the state of RI and Dupont so that the latter could avoid being tried in the now-legendary RI lead paint public nuisance litigation.

In the media coverage of the event, PROVIDENCE JOURNAL reporter Peter Lord - who has been following the litigation since the late 1990s - noted that the RI AG was questioned about $2.5 million Dupont money which went out of state to Massachusetts Brigham & Women's Hospital.  The institution has no association with lead health hazards.  It was alleged that the money was directed there because Motley Rice law-firm partner Jack McConnell pledged money to that medical facility.  Motley Rice was selected by the RI AG to assist with the RI lead paint public nuisance two trials on contingency.

Those I contacted about this allegation sort of just shrugged.  They seemed relieved that at least some of the money was going toward what the whole enchilada had been about: The lead paint hazard to children.

Nothing to shrug off, responds this legal journalist. 

*****************************************************************************************************************

Legal Journalist off the record on Dupont money:

"I think the fact that people are shrugging off this Dupont agreement, as you mention in your post, is a sad case of pragmatism triumphing over principle.  In a lawsuit which was founded on a principled, ethical and even moral premise: 'Those who cause a mess should clean it up' (Jack McConnell's words from the opening statements of the second RI lead paint trial), the fact that $2.5 million was paid to Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston - for something other than lead treatment - is a betrayal of principles, ethics and even morality.

"I don't fault Dupont for taking advantage of the situation which presented itself.  I fault the Attorney General's Office for allowing this as an option in the first place.  The plaintiffs' arguments will take on a hollow ring in the wake of this compromise deal, which showed that patronage was really the motivating factor.  They would probably never utter it aloud, but the people in Rhode Island who really work in the trenches and care passionately about alleviating the damage caused by childhood lead paint poisoning should feel cheated by the very people who had pledged to be their advocates.

**********************************************************************************************************************

Input on this issue is welcome.  Please leave a comment or contact Jane Genova Mgenova981@aol.com, 203-468-8579.

DuPont Money Being Put to Work in Lead Paint Remediation

That agreement with Dupont which kept it from going to trial for contributing to a public nuisance is what's funding lead remediation of about 600 houses in Rhode Island.  Today RI Attorney General Patrick Lynch and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held a press conference about the $6.7 million program. The project will proceed five houses at a time and the work overseen by nonprofit CLEARCorps whose mission is healthy families.

That agreement has been steeped in controversy.  At the media event, reports PROVIDENCE JOURNAL reporter Peter Lord, Lynch was questioned about the $2.5 million of it which went out of state to The Brigham and Women's Hospital in Massachusetts.  That institution is not involved with lead paint health hazards.  It has been alleged that the donation was made to satisfy a pledge made by Motley Rice law partner Jack McConnell.  Motley Rice was hired on contingency to assist the state of RI with the two lead paint public nuisance trials.

Some of those I've contacted about this controversy shrug.  They are pleased that lead remediation is being done and that it's being paid for through the Dupont agreement.

Isn't It the "Practice" of Law? Apprentice Programs Sound, Well, Fishy

Should law return to the total apprenticeship system?  There would be no law school and no six-figure student debt.  There would be no new JDs who realize they hate practicing law.  Apprentices might have to pay a fee for entering the program, which was standard in many lines of work when there were no or few professional or trade schools.  But that would be a more productive investment with perhaps a better ROI than the crap shoot of spending a bundle for three years of law school with no job afterwards.

That idea seems to have possibilities.  Less promising seems the apprentice approach being created by law firms such as Howrey.  Newly minted JDs sit in classrooms, which they have just done for three years of law school and four of undergraduate.  They "shadow" lawyers serving clients.  They get paid about $60K less than newly minted JDs not in such apprenticeship programs.  Is this a public relations tactic to have clients know newbie associates won't be on the account and, just as importantly, they won't be paying for the perhaps inefficient work of newbies?

Law is a "practice."  It's much like learning to drive, to write for print, to blog.  You learn by doing, not by sitting in a classroom.  I have never learned a thing about communications by "shadowing" a higher-up in an organization.  They tried that when I was employed full-time at GM and I rebelled - successfully.  When you're not involved in the actual doing and responsible for the quality of the product or service, you soon enough find yourself on auto-pilot.

The marketplace votes with its feet.  If the talent doesn't enter these apprenticeship programs, they will die a natural death.  The firm's brandname will take a hit because clients will wonder about this banana-republic type change, followed by more change.

Assessment: Law Firm Apprentice Programs are a very bad idea. 

"Washington to California: Drop Dead," Politico.com

The headline in Politico.com reads "Washington to California: Drop Dead."  The article goes on to report that despite California's severe financial problems, Washington D.C. is telling it:  Buddy, you're on your own.  Essentially that's what President Gerald Ford told New York.

Clearly, the state stands isolated in its economic free-fall.  Will that have any influence on how the CA Supreme Court approaches the contingency issue? 

After all, law is never determined in a vacuum.  There are usually public policy parts.  Will the Justices on the CA SC realize that the state must mend its idiosyncratic aka idealistic ways in order to receive cooperation and perhaps even help from the federal government as well as other states? Here is the CA appeals court idealistic approval of contingency in public nuisance cases Download H031540