Law And More

Jones Day - What Was It Thinking in Court/Social Media Response to "Savignac/Sheketoff v. Jones Day et al."

Public relations may be more of a wild-card game to play than litigation.

Jones Day, once a low-profile black box, has decided to leverage the court of public opinion for lawsuits filed against it. That began with gender bias case "Tolton et al. v. Jones Day." It posted on its website about the lawsuit. Here is that statement. 

Now it might have gone out of control with the parental leave bias litigation "Savignac, Sheketoff v. Jones Day et al." Here is a copy of the complaint. The two plaintiffs had been former U.S. Supreme Court clerks.

The plaintiffs, among a number of beefs, contend that it is illegal for Jones Day to provide more paid parental leave for females than males, there was retaliation when plaintiff brought that to the attention of Jones Day, and there had been a pay gap between female and male associates. 

As Jack Newsham reports in Law.com, Jones Day issued a public statement in social media about the litigation. That was in addition to filing in court a motion requesting a 30-day extension of when it has to respond to the lawsuit. Here is that statement. posted on its website.

Essentially Jones Day claims:

• The contentions ignore law and biology
• There was no retaliation. Savignac was fired because of poor judgement, lack of social skills, and perceived disinterest in a career at Jones Day.
• Sheketoff was paid equitably, despite mixed reviews of her performance. 

A fundamental of public relations is: Knowing when to put it out there and when to lay low. The ambitious in the public affairs industry should take the leap into the analyzing the dynamics of Jones Day's new approach to branding. 

Reflection: Is white shoe law firm Jones Day becoming undone? Meanwhile, consumers of the legal media are enjoying the theatre. 

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Chipped Paint - The Crime-Stopping Theory which, Unlike Broken Windows, Could Pan Out

Crime, economic development, and a community's sense of well-being.

Anyone who has lived in a neighborhood on the decline gets the association of that with chipped paint on the houses.

It's obvious.

That piggybacks on the earlier crime-stopping theory of broken windows. But, unlike that theory, this one could really pan out. That's because it's more grassroots. And it is rooted in how people nest.

Community leaders can pilot programs to fix that chipped paint to reduce crime and,on the way, also probably achieve lots of economic progress.

Last weekend I returned to my old neighborhood in the Wilkinsburg section of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metro area. In the early 1980s, I had owned a duplex on Marlboro Avenue. 

No, I didn't encounter broken windows. One property did have boarded up windows. What unhinged me was so many houses had chipped paint. That's so fixable. Instead of going to underdeveloped economies to do good, the well-meaning can volunteer to fix the chipped-paint situation. 

The architecture of the houses in Wilkinburg, as in most of Pittsburgh metro, is beautiful. Those houses are worth saving. But they might not endure if there is a perception of the neighborhood as being a target for crime. Chipped paint can create such a perception. Since I am in the public relations industry, I know perception is everything. 

In the amazing turnaround of old-line city Jersey City, New Jersey, mayor Steve Fulop has focused on reducing crime. Most recently he has installed more video cameras.

But, what if he experimented with a program to fix up the exteriors of houses with chipped paint? I had grown up in Jersey City. There remain sections of that gentrified urban area which still have plenty of housing with chipped paint - and high crime. 

Leaders who get in front of chipped paint could emerge as community superheroes. Do that and the economic developers will come.  Also, saving old housing is totally eco.

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Dateline's Robert Durst Special - Susan Berman Steals the Show

Wealthy oddball, Robert Durst is suspected of three murders. 

But, as Dateline focused last night on NBC, he's only being tried for one - Susan Berman's.

The grabber for the highly promoted programming was supposed to be the prerecorded testimony of those in Durst's circle. It will be used in the trial. Their statements, of course, could help the prosecution make its case. The judge is allowing the prosecution to leverage the mosaic of the three murders to try to nail Durst on one. 

Little of that grabbed. Given the enormous media of Durst over the decades, much was predictable. 

What did intrigue was the character of Berman. The child of a big mobster, she didn't fear darkness. In fact, she might have associated it with love and trusted it. That could have been her tragic flaw. 

As happens for many, Berman ran out of money. For that she seemed to turn to Durst. It could have been that she leveraged the help she allegedly gave in covering up the murder of his wife Kathie McCormack.

The prosecution is floating the idea that she was the one who impersonated McCormack in a phone call to the medical school. That could have been to create the narrative that the wife was still alive that morning in Manhattan, leaving Durst off the hook in another part of New York state.

The request for money might have set off alarms in Durst. He could have concluded: Berman was the woman who knew too much and therefore had to go. Of course, he had the financial resources to set up a contract killing. She was offed execution style. If that was staging it was smart. It could create the theory that in her journalism about being daughter of the mob she crossed someone.

The takeaway here could be not to play in the darkness. The creatures in it are not knowable. That is being played out in the popular new television series "Good Girls." Even after she loops out of punishment for everything from robbery to money laundering, Beth not only continues her life of crime. She ups her game. There is no flight back to the conventional safety of being a suburban mom. Darkness generates more darkness. 

If Durst lives to be tried next January - he has cancer - it probably will be the idea of what it means to be a mobster's daughter which hovers over the courtroom. Not only might Berman have been the woman who knew too much. She also seems to have been the woman who assumed she could control the darkness. 

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Beyond Shareholder Value - Blowing Up Friedman Orthodoxy & (big) Implications for Lawyers

Globally, traditional capitalism is being questioned - and attacked.

Here in the U.S. that has been an issue in Election 2020.

The informal headquarters for Worldwide Capitalism - Harvard Business School - offers an election on reimagining capitalism.

So, it should be no surprise that the influential organization - the Business Roundtable - has extended the "purpose of a corporation" beyond shareholder value.

That's radical in recent business history.

The primacy of shareholder value had hardened into business orthodoxy. It had been known as the "Friedman Theory, since it had been put out there by economist Milton Friedman.

It had been standard rhetoric in corporate communications. As those of us in executive communications know, the concept was a must in official and unofficial messaging. Internally, no one questioned it - at least not openly.

Now, the group indicates, other stakeholders should be taken into account in its decision-making. They include employees, customers, and community. Who heads the Business Roundtable is the powerful hands-on head of JPMorgan Chase and thought leader Jamie Dimon. Here are more details from The Wall Street Journal.

The implications are huge.

Among them is that the corporation can shift from the obsession with short-term gain to the long-term. "Impatient capital" could become 20th century. Dimon is especially interested in that.

Also, environmentalism can stand toe to toe with other issues in the C-Suite, in conference calls with security analysts, and at shareholder meetings. Already, investors are focusing on matters associated with a changing climate.

Business models such as Uber's, which leverage the use of gig workers who have no benefits, could be censured. Constituencies such as customers and communities could boycott those corporations.

And, the day could come when never again will a location like the Ohio Valley be devastated when a major plant such as GM's former Lordstown one is shut down, with no replacement. Those in the Valley questioned why GM couldn't have retrofitted the production facility for another vehicle which sold better than the sedan. 

Also, what about the collective mental health on planet earth, in nations, in states, and in cities and towns? Clinical depression has been a long-term global crisis, documents the World Health Organization.

Here in the U.S. if the purpose of a corporation really does get broadened, the kind of humane ethos of the late 1960s counterculture would get a second chance.

Meanwhile, those in the branding industry will have to return to the drawing board. Lawyers will receive a different set of marching orders from clients. 

Globally, the language of capitalism will change.

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Fox - Who's REALLY in Charge?

"I call the shots on the big debates."

That's what U.S. president Donald Trump contended about Fox in an interview recorded by Mediaite. He also noted that his worst polls come from Fox.

He kept reiterating that Fox is different now. But he didn't give the parameters of the "now." Or, how it is different.

So, the question arises: Who does call the shots at Fox?

Of course, former creator of Fox Roger Ailes no longer is calling any shots. He had been forced out, then died of an accident shortly after (Amazing there weren't more conspiracy theories about that. After all there had been rumors he was trying to put together a competitor to Fox).

According to Michael Wolff's book "Siege," Rupert Murdoch still really hasn't handed the power over to the next generation. But even Murdoch, Wolff indicated, had to cave to the force field of Trumpism. Incidentally, Wolff devotes a lot of pages to the leaders and players at Fox. Here you can order "Siege."

Given the possibility of a Trump (stock market/overall economy) Crash, the debates could be the most-watched live presentation on cable for 2019.

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

The Suing Couple - This Time Ellen Pao, Buddy Fletcher Are in Court for Divorce (not alleged bias)

They were once a power couple. 

Ivy league educated.

Sophisticated.

She a tech venture capitalist, then oversaw a social media platform, and next an advocate for leveling the playing field for women in Silicon Valley. He had been the head of a hedge fund - Fletcher Asset Management.

Their networks were golden.

And, both became household names because of lawsuits about alleged bias.

She - Ellen Pao - took on venture capital firm "Kleiner Perkins" after she was axed. She contended gender discrimination, in an era before #MeToo.

He - Buddy Fletcher - took on the Dakota when the board wouldn't allow him to purchase a fifth property. He contended it was because he was African-American.

Both lost those lawsuits.

Now, they are back in court. Only, as the New York Post reports, it is for divorce. That kicked off in 2017. It goes on and on. 

The way their marriage is ending is filled with as much hostility as their earlier lawsuits. Both seem to have a deep sense of entitlement. 

The accusations will likely make their way into a cover story by Vanity Fair. That glossy had already covered the couple a number of times. Here is the 2013 Vanity Fair article "Sex, Lies, and Lawsuits."

He claims he is destitute and requests financial support. His head fund collapsed. There had been dark accusations about it. He also requested in court and lost that Pao be kept away from their daughter. He is representing himself, that is, doing all this pro se.

She wants him out of her pocketbook and life. Apparently she had managed to land on her feet financially after losing the lawsuit and her job at Reddit. Currently she is living at the Ritz-Carlton Club and Residence. 

The theatre attached to both is palpable. They're drama magnets. 

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Michael Wolff's "Siege" - All The President's Lawyers

Legal sector insiders probably won't be reading Michael Wolff's June 2019 book "Siege." At least not to find out the dirt about U.S. President Donald Trump's lawyers.

But those who hover on the fringes, watching Dan Abrams on ABC, likely will enjoy Chapter 3 of the book. The title is "Lawyers." 

For example, they will find out that Alan Dershowitz is no heavy-duty legal scholar. Instead, he is more of a celebrity lawyer, the kind who knows how to publish the right books and use the medium of television. A Baby Boomer, Trump grew up with that medium.

When Trump was searching for a killer lawyer who would work the television optics he invited Dershowitz to the White House. He was considering hiring Dershowitz. Most the BigLaw firms didn't want to get into the loop. Their committees voted down that business because Trump was being Trump and they were also afraid of being stiffed on the bill.

But Dershowitz wanted a million bucks to do the job on a formal basis. So, Trump moved on to the Rudy Giuliani who would work for free. It seems that Giuliani wanted to get out of the house. His third marriage, like the previous two, was a disaster. But to take the job, which paid nada, he had to step down from his position at Greenberg Traurig which wanted no part of all that. 

Wolff confirms the bad blood between Trump and the White House lead counsel Don McGahn. Actually it was worse than the media portrayed it. McGahn hated Trump. 

In essence, Trump assumed, like Richard Nixon, that he was above the law. For example, he would tell McGahn that it was his [Trump's] Department of Justice. Trump wanted people around him who would reinforce that notion. Then, ironically, he would torment them for being suck-ups. As we know, James Comey wasn't among the suck-ups and he got the boot. 

In the book, Wolff also observes that the U.S. legal system can be gamed. That is accomplished through bringing on enough legal juice and muscle. 

As Trump became more convinced he was above the law those in White House made it their mission to avoid attending certain meetings. They didn't be in the loop on Trump's agendas. They knew they couldn't afford the legal bills if they were dragged in. 

On Amazon, "Siege" ranks high - 8,810. In terms of describing legal and political dynamics it is probably a more useful and engaging read than Wolff's earlier book "Fire and Fury."

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Jeffrey Epstein - The Extreme Punishment of Mental Anguish

One meme floating around is that through death - suicide or homicide - Jeffrey Epstein escaped "justice." They define justice as having to go through the public ritual of a courtroom trial. Yeah, with all the cameras, tweeters, and long-form legal journalists. 

However, anyone who is steeped in the arts, has endured a reversal of fortune, and/or had been on the wrong side of the law knows that justice is positioned and packaged in myriad forms. Among the most severe ways it is delivered is through mental anguish. 

That's the theme of Fydor Dostoevsky's classic novel "Crime and Punishment." The murderer - Rodion Raskolnikov - lives in his head as he plans to off the pawn broker. And it's in his head that justice happens. How he suffers. 

Consider the psychic shift Epstein could have been saddled with after he had been charged with sex trafficking.

He could have emotionally journeyed from a wealthy power player to a human being who became powerless - including over his thoughts. Yeah, that "freight train" that roars through the human mind. Mindfulness currently is being embraced as a tool to lower that noise. 

In addition, Epstein lost control over his lifestyle. The Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan was known to have been overtaken by the cockroaches.

Also, he had to fear for his life. Pedophiles are targeted when incarcerated and also he was the man who knew too much. Few buy the suicide theory. 

Those hoping for "justice" in the courtroom are naïve about the U.S. legal system. Top legal talent can game it. Those with the resources to hire those kinds of legal teams frequently have great hope about getting off the hook. The surprise was that former McKinsey head Rajat Gupta was convicted. In a sense punishment came in the old fashioned way of mental torment as well as a prison sentence for Gupta.  

Epstein got his. Now the alleged victims can file lawsuits to get theirs in the form of monetary compensation. So much of American justice is about being awarded money. 

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Jones Day's Stephen J. Brogan - One for the Bookmakers

Will Stephen J. Brogan be able to hold onto his leadership position at Jones Day?

That's one for the bookmakers.

The tipping point may be the litigation which went high-profile fast. That's the gender-bias lawsuit in which he has been explicitly named as a defendant - "Savignac, Sheketoff v. Jones Day, Stephen J. Brogan, Beth Heifetz." Here is a copy of the complaint. 

His presence also hovers over the class action gender lawsuit which has been continually in the media. That's "Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day." Here is a copy of that.

Essentially, Brogan has been positioned and packaged in the media as the autocratic leader, based in the Jones Day D.C. office, who makes all those allegedly biased decisions about compensation and promotion.

Given Jones Day's alleged black box culture, those decisions are kept secret. It is said that no one at Jones Day knows anyone else's compensation. Therefore, that in itself can be a fertile ground for discrimination. Third-year female associate does not know what her male counterpart received as a raise. So, she toils in the black box in blissful ignorance of any compensation inequities. 

As everyone in the legal sector knows, what goes down in the court of public opinion can have more real-world impact than what goes on in the court of law. It's unlikely that either of the lawsuits will make it to trial. Too much could be disclosed in a courtroom about how Jones Day operates. Therefore, if the legal teams for the plaintiffs are good, Jones Day will have to cave to a settlement. 

But before that, the Jones Day brand can be made to appear cartoonish. Humor is the cruelest weapon of all. The force of public opinion could trigger a coup: the end of the reign of Stephen J. Brogan in the all-important D.C. office. The world needs a Gabriel Sherman type to chronicle any such palace intrigue. 

"Uneasy lies the head who wears a crown," Henry IV, Part IV

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Jones Day Hit Again - "Mark C. Savignac, Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, Stephen J. Brogan, Beth Heifetz"

Recently Jones Day did catch a break in the high-profile gender bias litigation filed against it.

One of the four Jane Does backed off. Jones Day had pushed to end the use of anonymous plaintiffs in that gender bias class action "Tolton et al. v. Jones Day." The three others had disclosed their identities. The fourth, instead of doing that, removed her name for the lawsuit and her specific allegations.

But, that might be it for a while for Jones Day.

Now, at Law.com, Dan Packel describes, it has been hit with yet another gender bias lawsuit. It had been filed by a couple who met while they were clerking at SCOTUS and had been associates at Jones Day. 

The lawsuit is "Mark C. Savignac, Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, Stephen J. Brogan, Beth Heifetz." Here is a copy of the complaint, filed yesterday in federal court in D.C. 

The couple had more than one beef.

The issue which is getting the most attention is their contention that Jones Day's parental leave discriminates against males. For some reason, it provides more leave time to all women than to men. That gap totals eight weeks. The two claim each member wants to participate equally in the rearing of their child.

Another topic is Sheketoff's perception that she was paid less than males doing comparable work. Before childbirth, she had left Jones Day and now is employed as an assistant public defender.

A third issue is that after the two sent emails about the leave policy to the brass at Jones Day, Savignac was fired. He is now employed at Steptoe & Johnson. 

The complaint also contains references to Stephen J. Brogan's alleged autocratic style of leadership and the law firm's alleged secretive culture which allows bias. The third defendant Beth Heifetz heads Jones Day's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group.

Annually, Jones Day is known for recruiting a large number of former SCOTUS clerks. That can give it unique current insight into the mindsets of SCOTUS' justices. To the recruits it offers sign-on bonuses of $300,000 or more. Will this lawsuit deter some former clerks from accepting positions at Jones Day?

And, will gender lawsuits like this hurt Jones Day's branding to the point that the best and brightest at the T-14 will not apply for associate jobs?

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.