Law And More

Drudge Report - Business Seems to Trump Politics (pun intended & don't expect Matt Drudge to blink)

Matt Drudge and his new conservative digital political tabloid became household names in January 1998.

That's when the Drudge Report broke the "intern story," that is, that U.S. president Bill Clinton had some kind of sexual relationship with assistant Monica Lewinsky. 

The impeachment process eventually kicked in. 

Drudge's outing was no surprise. After all, he was a conservative player. 

What surprised some, but not everyone, has been this: In the past several months that conservative tabloid went negative on the Trump Administration. It was at the time that the U.S. president Donald Trump seemed headed toward possible impeachment.

Darkness was falling. And Matt didn't miss any of that in the aggregation.

Now, reports the Daily Beast based on its sources, Trump himself has noticed the shift away from blind loyalty. Of course, he doesn't like what he is reading. According to the Beast, he requested that his son-in-law Jared Kushner find out what's going on. 

Those who are not surprised understand both the influence game and the business of media. 

Given the Drudge Report's extreme influence, Matt would be a fool to limit support to any rigid ideology or a player whose own influence could be on a downward trajectory. The Drudge Report is read regularly not only by conservatives but also a growing number of liberals, as well as those on mainstream. Its reach keeps growing. Meanwhile, HuffPost, launched as a liberal push-back, is up for sale. 

In the volatile media industry, the Drudge Report also is one of the not very many of native digitals which continues to scale as a business. Axios is another.

Matt understands the business, whereas other players in the space seemed too caught up in increasing traffic, at any cost. That cost wound up ranging from losing advertisers to losing litigation, as had Gawker. In a sense, they are chasing exposure, not profits. 

Media is a business. Matt is a businessperson who is operating a media enterprise. 

If Trump is smart he will leave his relationship, if any, with the Drudge Report twitter-free. Matt has acquired too much power and is too independent (unlike the folks at Fox) to have to cave to Trump. 

Reflection: Given the undertow of tension between Matt and Trump, more readers will probably flock to the Drudge Report to check out the tone of all content associated with the Trump Administration or Trump himself.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

The Rhetoric of Policy-Making - The Evolution of "Radical"

The headline in Thomson Reuters uses the term "radicalize" associated with Mohammed Saud Alshamrani.

Of course, in that context the connotation is negative. And, skilled policy-makers know to avoid that word.

But that wasn't also the situation.

Language, like all human institutions, keeps changing.

During the late 1960s counterculture, "radicalize" had a cool meaning.

The "enlightened" was the radicalized. They were the ones who attracted love, speaking engagements, and jobs in emerging industries such as counterculture retail. Being radical was also a lot of fun. All that theatre in the streets. 

The unenlightened became isolated, at least in some hubs of political and cultural activity such as Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Recall also, the founding fathers of America were considered radicals.

Currently, radical scares. It does, however, grab media headlines. What the far-left proposes is always the top of the news, both in liberal and conservative media. 

Instead of being positioned and packaged as "radical," those struggling to get support for a policy or establish a presence should aim to be known as "innovative." That's now a platitude. But it still represents effective rhetoric. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Clash of the Titans: Jones Day Takes on Sanford Heisler Sharp

The high profile gender bias lawsuit "Tolton et al. v.  Jones Day" just got a lot more high profile. 

Call it the Clash of the Titans. Recently the six named plaintiffs in that litigation filed a motion for class certification. That got plenty of media attention. Here you can consider the details.

Now, defendant Jones Day takes on the lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp representing the plaintiffs. 

As Law.com reports, Jones Day filed a motion for sanctions against the lawyers at Sanford. Here is a copy of that motion.

Essentially, Sanford in the brand in employment discrimination litigation. Its signature case was the settlement for Kerrie Campbell.

Jones Day contends that the lawyers for the defendants did not do their research to support their claim that that females did not receive equal pay with males for doing the same kind of work. For example, the litigation did not prevent the Sanford lawyers from interviewing Jones Day male associates about their compensation. Also. research would have turned up that, with the exception of the New York City market, male associates did not receive Cravath level compensation. So all references to that are flawed. 

Jones Day claims that there are among the plaintiffs those who talked with male colleagues before the litigation and did not find evidence of a pay disparity. 

What Jones Day is demanding in its motion are:

•  All claims based on disparate pay be eliminated from the lawsuit
•  An order granting fees and costs associated with the motion.

The world awaits how Sanford will manage this motion to sanction. David Sanford has evolved into a superhero to those females perceiving gender bias. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

"Tolton et al. v. Jones Day" - 6 Named Plaintiffs File Motion for Certification of Class Action Status (nothing remains unthinkable)

The $200 million gender discrimination lawsuit "Tolton et al. v. Jones Day" continues to be high profile.

It's no longer unthinkable that it could result in ousting Jones Day's managing partner Stephen J. Brogan from his position of influence and power.

Among the allegations of the lawsuit is that he signs off on all compensation decisions. The plaintiffs contend those decisions contained gender bias. 

It's the way of the world since biblical times: A scapegoat is required. Brogan could just be the designated scapegoat.

The latest development in "Tolton," reports Law.com, is that the six named plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the litigation as a class action. Here is the copy of that motion. They contend they can take collective action under the Equal Pay Act.

Should the motion be granted then the door opens for all females employed by Jones Day since April 3, 2016 to opt into the class action. 

But, that's a big if.

Some might recall the high-profile gender bias lawsuit "Dukes v. Walmart." That went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which tossed it.

SCOTUS claimed that since management at WalMart was decentralized, at the store level the managers couldn't have gotten together and cooked up discriminatory policies. Essentially, each manager at each retail location was presented as autonomous. 

However, if the class is certified and if the litigation isn't settled, Jones Day faces serious challenges.

To begin with, plaintiffs are represented by powerhouse in employment law Sanford Heisler Sharp.

Secondly, in court, during the trial, Jones Day's supposed black box culture could be disclosed in detail. Plaintiffs claim that institutionalized stealth system serves to allow for discrimination in compensation.

In addition, on anonymous forums such as Glassdoor there are those lawyers who complain in a general way about the alleged below market compensation that is facilitated in a culture in which no one knows each other's salary.

Instead of focusing on money, the lawyers at Jones Day, some claim, are assumed to be kinds of medieval monks toiling away selflessly on their mission. At Jones Day, the mission is serving the law and through that assisting clients. 

Also, third, the jury could be sympathetic to the plaintiffs and send a message to all law firms by imposing what is being called a "nuclear verdict." That is an award, usually for punitive damages, for the plaintiff which way exceeds standard expectations.

That first caught mainstream attention via the $140 million verdict a Florida jury delivered in "Hulk Hogan v. Gawker." They certainly sent a message to the New York media outlet about pushing the envelope on privacy.

Gawker, as many know, went bankrupt. A chill went through the media world. The plaintiff lawyer in that Charles Harder became the star in interpreting the 1st Amendment. 

Jones Day could be in a real pickle.

Like 81-year-old Alan Dershowitz, Brogan could be facing the biggest legal challenge of his career and to his brand. 

Recently, Dershowitz published a book defending himself in the Epstein looping. Here is my analysis of that book, published on Odwyerpr.com.

Perhaps it would be smart for Brogan to also put a book out there. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Contract Dispute at Harvard - Age-Old Issue of Power

It's Harvard.

So, of course, the strike by graduate and research assistants is being closely watched by the media.

The Wall Street Journal had covered it.

And now, right on the scene, Boston Magazine is explaining the issues involved.

At the top of the list of issues is this: The strikers, currently involved in a contract dispute with the University, want their message to be heard. That could be more important, at least to them and their union the United Auto Workers.

That message is fair treatment for those who are really the ones who, to use that old cliche, keep the trains running on time in a massive organization.

Those who have been a graduate teaching or research assistant (I had been both) in elite academic institutions understand that they are the front lines of service.

They do everything from delivering the lectures to performing the grunt tasks for major scientific projects.

In return, yes, they do receive pay.

However, that pay, contend the strikers, is too low (about $3K a month) for the cost of living in that geographic area and the raises haven't kept pace with inflation. Also, their contract might not cover all 12 months of the year, leaving them financially scrambling after the normal academic year ends.

Those beefs mirror the ones of the average working person in the U.S. In era of stuck compensation, most are struggling. In addition to the day job, side hustles are becoming standard. Therefore, the message should resonate throughout the world of work in America. But, will it? That is the question?

Other demands include:

Better healthcare coverage

Protection from abuse of all kind 

Being able to bring complaints about sexual misconduct to a third party versus the university.

Essentially, this contract dispute is about power.

That's what MIT president L. Rafael Reif highlighted in his letter after the outing of Jeffery Epstein's association with that university. An investigation turned up that star professors, for example, were abusing students in a number of ways, not simply sexually. 

To succeed in their future career, most graduate students need professors and administrators with power to open doors for them. Those can take many forms. They include being invited to participate in research, receiving a great recommendation, or learning of a job opening that hasn't been posted and being referred to those in the loop.  

Tolerating what-is can represent dues-paying in the university system. The game seems to be politics at a highly refined level. 

Given what's at stake, one wonders if those outside Harvard, both in academia and in all the non-academic jobs out there, will take seriously the message about fair treatment.

Graduate students in myriad other academic settings are usually smart enough to get down cold the rules of the success game. Those are all about nurturing relationships with players who can advance them on their career paths. That's the sandbox in which the power hangs out. 

Workers, including at Alphabet, get it that landing, holding, and moving on to better work usually entails aligning oneself with the company culture. 

Reflection: It will be interesting to monitor how much influence this strike has, both within and beyond Harvard.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Should Crying Be Banned in Courts of Public Opinion, Law? - From Virginia Giuffre Back to Chessy Prout

Tears. 

They are assumed to be a sign that an adult human being is undergoing extreme emotion.

So, yes, they tend to attract a lot of attention, both in the courts of public opinion and law.

So, a reasonable question about fair play is: Should crying be banned in media interviews and in testimony in legal proceedings?

One procedural reform would be to stop the interview/testimony until the person collects herself or himself. During the pause, the person would be removed from the setting.

Yes, that comprehensive response to crying could deter game-players, that is those leveraging tears strategically. As is well-known, there is a crying game.

Recently, allies of Prince Andrew, reports the New York Post, have accused the BBC of bias in the interview of Virginia Giuffre. Their objections include allowing "lots of crying." In addition, they perceive she was handed softball questions versus the hardball ones the Prince had to respond to. 

However, the allies should also consider this: Some in the audience could have experienced the Giuffre tears as premeditated manipulation. We live in a tough era in which life has become a struggle for so many. Tears in a formal setting such as a global media interview can be a turn-off. The audience response might be: Like what does she/he have to cry about? Here's what I have been through ...

In the trial about alleged rape by St. Paul Prep School graduate Owen Labrie, what the media et al. had noticed was the crying by the accuser when on the stand. Later she disclosed her identity: Chessy Prout.

Those copious tears could have worked against her. The jury did not come in with a conviction for the major crime of rape. Essentially they didn't believe Prout's account of how things went down.

Could that lack of belief have resulted, in part, from questions about the crying?  But, maybe not. Perhaps only the jaded about positioning and packaging personal brands were suspicious of the tears.

I
t is documented how subjective jurors have become. In a sense some have taken on the role of the Greek Chorus, using nuclear verdicts to send a message to miscreants. The fascinating issue here is: Are those jurors who are driven to influence society engaged or enraged by tears? 

Nuclear verdicts have forced the defense bar to review from end-to-end how it manages cases. Part of that investigation could include the role of the plaintiff'a tears in both the courts of public opinion and of law.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Fintech - Can London Startup Fronted Reduce Landlord-Tenant Disputes?

In the many versions of "small claims court," the most common cases are landlord-tenant disputes. 

The London startup Fronted might eventually prevent a lot of those kinds of problems from happening around the world. Here in the U.S. some refer to the usual imbalance of power as "Landlord Nation."

Fronted can be a game-changer through the fintech tools they are developing. 

Fronted founders are kicking things off in the UK with their fintech product to assist renters in being able to have the funds for the rental deposit. In some situations, that could include a security deposit, the first month's rent, and the last month's rent. If pets are allowed, there could be more added on and that amount may not be refundable. 

If renters obtain the money through credit cards, payday lenders, or financial institutions making personal loans, the overall cost could be a lot. Fronted's mission is to lower that cost. That will provide more rental options for those needing a better place to live. Too many get stuck staying put because they can't pony up the deposit.

As TechCrunch reports, Fronted uses Open Banking and other fintech tools to check the background of the applicant and then, if things are okay, transfer the funds directly to the agent in charge of the transaction. The money never gets in the hands of the renter. That eliminates the possibility of fraud.

Factored into the programming is a feature called the "holiday mode." That temporarily reduces the payment schedule so that the borrowers won't fall behind when they find they are stretched too thin financially. 

This lending arrangement is only the first of Fronted fintech products. The others could level the playing field between landlords and tenants. Too many have experienced applying for a rental as much an ordeal as applying for a job. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Your Law Firm Is Hit with Bad Publicity - Should You Put a Book Out There (or just do web stuff like Jones Day)?

Of course, the court of public opinion might have become more powerful than the court of law.

A sign of that evolution is this: those nuclear verdicts by jurors who perceive themselves as change agents. They are crossing the line from operating in a closed law-based system to factoring in what is bubbling up in the culture.

So, lawyers and their law firms have to pay more and more attention to the court of public opinion.

That's especially the situation when there is negative media coverage. Hit with that in gender discrimination"Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day," that usually low-profile law firm responded with a major posting on its website. Here it is. Such a move was atypical for Jones Day.

Here is a copy of the amended Tolton lawsuit. The plaintiffs are represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp, which operates one of the best if not the best public relations outreaches in employment law. 

But the question is: Because power has shifted to media, should law firms make it their business to publish books related to their own specific crisis? In addition, should they recommend that their clients publish a book about the issues involved in their litigation or transactions? Social media and social networking might not be enough. 

Recently, distressed criminal lawyer and former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz went the book route.

Essentially, that follow the playbook for crisis management 101. When the stakes are high, putting a book out there often is a necessary component of a public relations/marketing communication package. 

Dershowitz's book is "Guilt by Accusation." 

At age 81, that superlawyer in the criminal niche finds himself caught, both in the courts of law and of public opinion, in the Epstein looping.

In only 160 pages, his book presents a brilliant defense of both his mindsets and actual behavior. Well, it seems brilliant, at least to a non-lawyer like myself.

Posted on the influential O'Dwyer PR, here is my overview of "Guilt by Accusation." Given that O'Dwyer has become interested in that book, obviously it has traction.

Of course, "Guilt by Accusation" could gain support for Dershowitz in the court of public opinion. But in the court of law, where he faces multiple lawsuits, that's another situation. 

So, for those law firms and lawyers touched harshly by the media, yes, a book is probably a required investment. The same applies to clients who are in a pickle.

To the media, publishing a book is code for "coming clean."

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Allegedly Playing God - The Tragedy of Twigg/Mays Babies Switched at Birth

"Pain."

That's how David Muir summed up ABC's "20/20" two-hour special on the Twigg/Mays babies switched at birth in 1978.

That was at Hardee Memorial Hospital in Florida. Allegedly, Dr. Ernest Palmer played God with the futures of Kim Twigg and Alena Mays - as well as several other human beings in the loop.

A nurse from back then contended on her death bed Palmer made the decision to "re-assign" a baby with a severe heart problem to an out-of-town couple who already had several children and already had lost an infant daughter to heart disease.

That was the Twigg family.

The reality was that Regina Twigg had given birth to a healthy child. Barbara Mays was the birth mother of the sick baby Arlena.

The Mays couple, local and pillars of the community, had been trying for a decade to have a child. This "miracle" of fertility produced the very ill baby. They went home with the healthy daughter delivered by Regina.

Based on a phone call Barbara made when the sick child was about two years old and a white car parked outside the Twigg residence, Regina has a hunch that Barbara had been aware of the switch. At the time of the phone call, Barbara was dying of cancer. She had already divorced her husband. The latter was allegedly abusive, including to Kim. He died at age 65.

It's speculated that Barbara wanted to meet her own child before she died. But, she didn't follow through.

It was when Arlena, still a little girl, was certified before heart surgery that the switch was uncovered through a blood test. Within hours after the operation the child died. It had been her kidneys which had failed. The situation, of course, became lawyers' alley. 

Both families received multi-million settlements from the hospital.

However, the emotional fallout was profound. And it continues.

For example, now 40 years old, Kimberly has had what many would label a "difficult life." As a teenager she married, divorced, and had a child. She had lost custody of that child. Later she gave birth to more children whom she struggled to support as a stripper. On the "20/20" special, Kimberly looked older than her years. 

Of course, it has been no day at the beach for the Twigg family.

One could assume that Barbara Mays also suffered.

The nurse who didn't participate in the switch but felt she had to keep her mouth had been tormented during her life. 

The takeaway for the medical community is obvious. That's to factor in all the possible scenarios before making the ethical decision to play God. For the legal sector, especially family court, is to invest the resources to investigate what is really going on within a family unit. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

K&L Gates - What the Hell Is Going on?

From December 2018 through October 2019, K&L Gates lost 96 partners, while gaining only 32. Those defections occurred in all practices in myriad locations, ranging from Australia to Pittsburgh.

That number comes from ALM Intelligence and is reported by Kathryn Rubino at Abovethelaw.

Partner defections send all the wrong signals. 

Immediately the question emerges among constituencies be they members of the media, clients, prospects, and/or possible laterals with a book of business: What the hell is going on?

The worst case scenario, of course, is that the law firm is in financial distress or headed that way.

Other scenarios could be:

Unsatisfying compensation policies

Toxic organizational culture

Inability of partners to scale their businesses

Lack of a premier brand name. Partners don't want to be big fish in a small pond. They want to be big fish in a big pond. Power brandnames in themselves give the edge in new business development.

The stressful reality for K&L Gates leadership is that the firm is now being closely watched. Any more partner defections will be leading news in the legal media. Unhappy partners and associates could leak to the media. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.