Law And More

Post-Gender Era - But, Sanford Heisler Sharp Won't Be Out of Business

In some circles, the law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp's signature is the class action gender lawsuit against BigLaw.

A recent high-profile one has been "Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day." Here is a copy of the complaint.

However, if the post-gender era does come, Sanford has nothing to fear. A group or individual with power likely will always be treating unfairly those with less or no power. Lawsuits are in the cards.

Signs of a world without gender classifications seem to be taking shape. That includes language.

Berkeley, California has passed an ordinance banning all gender terms from the city code. Those terms range from "policewoman" to "manhole."

The popular book "Gender Outlaw" by Kate Bornstein envisions social norms which don't differentiate human beings according to the sex organs they were born with. There will be no male. There will be no female.

Increasingly the conventional notion of gender as male or female has broadened into a continuum understanding. On that continuum some human beings are at the points of being more or less male or female in attitudes and behavior.

So, there is no longer such a set notion of what's "female" or "male." On the popular network television series "Good Girls," Beth thinks strategically about criminal activity, like a man is expected to do. However, her deep love of her children would be considered a female trait. 

Also, and most importantly, with fertility rates plunging in developed economies, the female's reproductive role becomes less central to how the world operates. In The Atlantic, Derek Thompson chronicles how the future of cities - the main engine of economic growth - is childless. It might be conjected that the need for offspring could have resulted in a conspiracy to temper female career ambition. 

The time when human beings don't sort out anything based on the perception of gender could arrive sooner than traditionalists anticipate.

An unexpected consequence could be fewer serial killers. Many of those have been locked into sexual-identity distress. With that distress not taking hold any more, there would be no compulsion to kill and keep killing. If "Law & Order SVU" keeps being renewed for another season, it might feature a post-gender plot line. 

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

Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Wins One in Court Pre-Trial Hearing

Steve Jobs wannabe Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is still in black.

Only at the pre-trial court hearing it wasn't the signature black turtleneck.

It was a basic black dress and black blazer. And, at age 35, she's still attractive.

Some conjecture that it had been her youthful blonde good looks which lured big establishment names such as Henry Kissinger to the Theranos board of directors. At one point superlawyer David Boies had represented her.

Her trial on 11 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud will begin on July 28, 2020, in San Jose, California. Here is a summary of those counts by the Department of Justice. And, here is a copy of the actual indictment. 

The contention is that she and the startup's number-two Sunny Balwani deliberately misled investors, regulators, and the public about a technology which didn't exist. Balwani, who had also been her lover, was in court but arrived separately. In a television interview he argued that Theranos represented a business failure, not a fraud. If convicted, both face decades in prison.

But meanwhile, she did win one in court. She requested that the Food and Drug Administration speed up the process of turning over documents to her legal team. It claims that would require 6 months. No way, ruled federal judge Edward Davila. He gave the regulatory agency 75 days. Here are more details from the media.

By the time of the trial, most of the tech world could be in the reputational toilet. Regulators, media, the stock market, consumers, and the public globally could have turned on it. An indication of how bad it could it get is playing out in Europe. New York University marketing professor and internet expert Scott Galloway has been predicting just that. 

My hunch is that it will be difficult for both sides - prosecution and defense - to find objective jury members in the San Jose area. The defense might request a change of venue, which could delay the trial. Delays help defendants. 

In the tabloid media this saga could go down as "The Blonde and The Old White Men." 

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

 

Alan Dershowitz Says - More Rhetorical Pratfalls

Is is that bad?

Has the once formidable (lawyers didn't want to be on the opposing side) brand - Alan Dershowitz - become clownish?

Maybe.

Since he retired as a professor at Harvard Law School, the Dershowitz brand has been deflating. Think about those interviews on Fox ...

Now, with the interview he gave to Daily Mail, the brand seems to have become downright open to ridicule. 

Dershowitz, as some recall, had been part of Jeffrey Epstein's legal Dream Team. Nothing wrong with that. The Sixth Amendment is all about the right to legal representation.

However, Dershowitz asserts that Epstein's dream team didn't receive a "sweetheart" deal from then-prosecutor Alex Acosta. Yeah, Acosta got it right.

In addition, Dershowitz argues that Epstein did not receive any special treatment because of BigContacts. They include Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew. 

As a result of this Daily Mail interview one wonders if members of the media will begin bypassing Dershowitz. Maybe he should head to Clown Alley. There he can continue his rhetorical pratfalls. 

Meanwhile his 2018 book "The Case Against Impeaching Trump" isn't doing so hot. On Amazon its rank is a low 124,641. 

Dershowitz's enemies, in the legal sector and beyond, must be smirking. 

UPDATE:

Labor Head Alex Acosta resigns. More details here from Axios. 

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

"Blue Bloods" - Darkness Penetrates Boring Reagan Family Lightness of Being

In network television, Norman Rockwell values are out. An example of that is the hit series "Good Girls."

What is in is darkness. That ranges from the demons inherent in human nature to the curve balls from the external environment.

No fools, those shaping the tone and content of "Blue Bloods" have been reducing the sweetness and light. In their place has been more conflict, both within the characters and with the norms of the outside world.

Danny wonders about his vocation of ridding the world of bad characters. He should know by now that it has been his job which was responsible for the fire in his house and his wife Linda's death in what had been assumed to be a helicopter accident. Isn't he also worried that his sons will default into the family business and become crime-busters?

Erin re-thinks her relationship with former husband Jack. Were her criteria for assessing him too harsh.

Jamie bumps heads with dad. He becomes engaged to his partner and there is no rule on the book banning their continuing to be partners.

Dad is against that whole ball of wax. For example, do the Reagans want another cop in the family? Papa Bear Frank knows every time there is a radio call "officer down" the family members hold their breath.

Both Jamie and dad have to learn to walk through that darkness to some kind of light. However, the relationship has been changed forever.

Jamie has come into his own. He is Jamie, no longer primarily a Reagan. Frank no longer can be so certain of his point of view. In a sense, the torch has been passed to another generation. Grandpa Henry and patriarch Frank have lost some of their absolute power.

Also, the family men without female soulmates have to go in search of them. That is bound to introduce chaos in the traditional dynamics of the Reagan household.

The shift from happy clappy to conflict increases the odds that "Blue Bloods" will continue to be renewed season after season. 

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Era of Reimagining Capitalism - Hillary Who?

A sign that a prominent liberal has become irrelevant is this: The conservative digital native Drudge Report stops pouncing on her or him.

This time it's a her - Hillary Clinton.

At one time the Drudge Report's signature had been headlining with alleged doctored photos of Hillary. Those ranged from Rage-filled Hillary to Sick Hillary. 

That was then.

Currently Matt Drudge is finding negative articles and photos to curate about AOC, Bernie, Elizabeth, Cory, and, of course, Nancy. Regarding the latter, a fav is Nancy caught in various forms of brainfreeze.

The meme attacked is reimagining capitalism. Conservatives want none of that. They see the status quo as the best of all systems.

However, Harvard Business School had established an elective on that issue. And the World Economic Forum has weighed in about adjusting the dynamics of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Stanford Graduate School professor Jeffery Pfeffer has published the grim chronicle of working today - "Dying for a Paycheck."

Liberals from yesterday do reappear on the radar. Recently The Hill gave some attention to Hillary. The occasion was what she pontificated about the U.S. president Donald Trump's gala 4th of July military affair. 

If Hillary wants to reclaim space as we move into the third decade of the 21st century, she could put together a documentary on becoming irrelevant and strategies to create new platforms for influence.

There's a massive audience for that. Those include Baby Boomers and oldest of Gen X who have retired. The moment their title is gone, they become invisible. In addition, young people duck them. The fear is that the ghosts from another time will pile on the advice.

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

Legal Sector Needs a Lee Iacocca

Today the world lost a business leader who will be remembered for myriad accomplishments.

He gave youth the Mustang.

He turned around almost-bankrupt Chrysler. That saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in North America.

He knew how to put together a best-selling memoir.

And, to honor immigrants, he restored the Statue of Liberty. His parents had journeyed to America for a better life.

That giant was Lee Iacocca.

He passed on from his home in Los Angeles to that great auto show in the sky, at age 94. 

But because he was so prolific in what he gave the world there is one achievement - an earthquake in the field of communications - that is frequently ignored.

That's how he disrupted corporatespeak.

And that's exactly what is needed in much of the legal sector. Abovethelaw received and is still receiving so much attention because it ignored the stodgy stylistics traditional in just about every aspect of legal communications. 

Lee made his speeches totally conversational, decades before social media created that trend.

And his print material was direct versus the usual indirect aka safe style of Fortune 100 executives.

For example, in his oral presentations he used half statements. Even just single, stand-alone words. Contractions were standard in his speeches. And, nothing was wrong with the totally relaxed words like "gonna." 

In addition, he leveraged the tactic of shock. That was when most corporate players were predictable. At a special event the sponsor introduced him as having left Ford before coming to Chrysler. Iacocca stood up and bellowed out: I didn't leave Ford, I was fired. 

In print, he introduced short sentences, a major deviation from the convoluted structure of most business leaders. He made statements. Usually the context of most business communications had been not to say anything. He was dogmatic and imposed his ego. He refused to adopt the disemboweled corporate "we."

When Lee is finished having his say about heaven's version of the auto show, he should go to the powers that be. He will use his persuasive voodoo to no longer allow lawyers to enter. Their crime - dense, boring communications - is unforgivable.

Full Disclosure: I had the honor of serving the communications needs of Lee and some of the rest of his team ranging from Dick Dauch to Chris Steffen.

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

More Shade Thrown on Conde Nast: "Stefano Tonchi v. Advance Publications"

In a digital era, Conde Nast, whose parent is Advance Publications, can't get it right, as The New York Times finally did (at least for now.)

As part of its turnaround plan, that former publishing paradise, which treated creative talent like royalty, has been selling off titles.

Most recently it unloaded fashion magazine W to Future Media. During that transaction, it terminated "for cause" the long-term editor in chief Stefano Tonchi. His replacement is Sara Moonves (yes, daughter of Les Moonves).

What was the "for cause," is what Tonchi wants to know. He has filed a lawsuit.

In his lawsuit "Stefano Tonchi v. Advance Publications," Tonchi is requesting $1 million and more, including 18 months of health coverage. He contends violation of the employment contract. Here are more details from FashionLaw.

This development throws additional shade on Conde Nast.

Meanwhile, its digital site "Hive" remains fixated with Donald Trump (despite there being a media Trump Slump) and the royals. Some discerning readers yawn. In response more of us are gravitating to Axion. That digital native is among the handful in that niche which is scaling.

Reflection: Will Conde Nast be gone in five years, as had been predicted for The New York Times?

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Brand Jersey City Takes a Hit in Police Shooting - Setback for Mayor Steve Fulop

Old-line Jersey City, New Jersey became The New Brooklyn.

It went from a decaying joke to gentrified. The brand aura has been megawatt.

A studio apartment downtown lists at $2,325 a month.

For much of that, the businesses in Jersey City have to thank The Mayor From Wall Street Steve Fulop. And because he helped rebuild the city, new businesses did come. So did a new generation of professionals. They relocated from Manhattan.

The wrench in the works, though, has been crime. Recently Fulop introduced more technology. He installed more video cameras which usually act as a deterrent.

Crime can be a platform for violence and that's bad for real estate values and other commercial activities. 

Now, Brand Jersey City - and, by extension Fulop - have had a setback. Guns went off. They were police guns. Embedded in the crime problem, no matter what the urban area, is the police factor. Do police officers prevent crime or trigger, no pun intended, more of it?

Last night, reports the New York Post, police shot two young males on Randolph Avenue. They were setting off fireworks. 

One, identified as Devonte Moore, 21, had been shot three times in the leg. His mother Katrina Moore claims he will never be able to play football again at Iowa Western Community College. 

The other, 19, not identified, had been taken to Jersey City Medical Center and released.

The question put out there by the mother is this: How did young people playing with fireworks come to involve a police shooting? 

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

SCOTUS Docket for 2019 - 2020 Term - 13 Cases, Including Review of Bridget Kelly (Bridgegate) Conviction

Those of us who sensed Chris Christie aide Bridget Kelly got a raw deal in court regarding "Bridgegate" have our faith restored in the U.S. legal system.

As Marcia Coyle reports in Law.com, Kelly's conviction is one of the 13 petitions the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review for the 2019 - 2020 term. She is challenging both the conviction and the 13-month sentence.

The Kelly petition is "Kelly v. United States."

Here is a copy of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. 

Here is the history of that petition at SCOTUS.

Kelly is being represented by a Jones Day team including partner Yaakov Roth. The United Sates is being represented by deputy U.S. solicitor general Jeffrey Wall.

Jones Day is known to have a unique feel from what persuades The Nine. Annually they hire a large number of former SCOTUS clerks, paying them sign-up bonuses of up to $300,000. That insider perspective is, though, priceless.

As many recall, Kelly was among the seeming "fall guys" for the artificially created traffic jam on the Fort Lee ramp on the George Washington Bridge. The motivation was political retaliation.

Some contend that it was her boss Chris Christie who ordered it. After all, she at the time was an aide - with a big title. Those who understand how organizations, including political ones, operate wondered how any employee, even one with an impressive title, would take it upon herself to orchestrate such chaos without approval from the very top.

What the Jones Day team is asking, reports Law, is:

" ... whether a public official can 'defraud' the government of its property by advancing a 'public policy reason' for an official decision that is not her subjective 'real reason' for making the decision."

There was particular sympathy for Kelly from females who, like her, came of professional age as a seemingly "good Catholic girl." We were socialized to be other-directed, focused on making superiors and other forms of power look good. Those frequently included husbands. Also we worked unusually hard. In that selflessness we might have compulsively managed to cross the line from the ethical/legal to what the powers that be ordered or indirectly indicated would please them. 

The other dockets selected for review are:

"Department of Homeland Security v. Regents, University of California." (This represents a consolidation of three cases.)

"Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue."

"Opati v. Sudan." 

"Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A."

"GE Energy Power Conversion v. Oukokumpu Stainless." 

"Romag Fastners v. Fossil."

"Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions."

"Rodgriguez v. FDIC."

Two associated with the original "Carpenter v. Murphy." 

The implications of SCOTUS' decisions for each review are huge.

However, the decision, the written majority opinion, and any written minority dissents in "Kelly v. U.S." could impact not only Kelly but also the future career of Christie.

In the book "Kushner Inc.," Vicky Ward reports that Christie eventually was shut out of a major high-profile role in the Trump Administration. That could have been retaliation from the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner for the prosecutorial role Christie had played in sending dad to prison. Here it can ordered from Amazon.

Currently, Christie doesn't seem to have a lot going for him. Likely as part of a comeback strategy, in January, he published "Let Me Finish." Here it can ordered from Amazon. It ranks okay on Amazon -  in the 9,000s. But folks may be paying attention to that book to get the supposed dirt on the Trump Administration players. So, overall, Christie's positioning and packaging does not appear to be solid. 

If the SCOTUS decision goes Kelly's way, her career path, in contrast, has no limits. She can be the new kind of female superhero of our times. Flawed and sinning, but determined and resilient. 

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Showtime's "The Loudest Voice in the Room" - Guilt By Association Different in PR & Law

Tonight at 10 PM New York time, Showtime will broadcast the television interpretation of Gabriel Sherman's "The Loudest Voice in the Room."

That's the biography of now-dead outsized media tycoon Roger Ailes. It's the kind of story of the alleged abuse of power which never wears out. Others want to know, for strategic reasons or simple curiosity, how a human being gets to that place - professionally, emotionally, ethically, and legally. 

Of course, there will be fallout from reminding the world in yet again a big way of Ailes' seeming reign of terror. Over the years there had even been rumors in the grapevine that Fox's head Rupert Murdoch was afraid of Ailes. 

If any of the fallout involves lawyers, they have a convenient push-back: the sixth amendment.

In The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow huffed and puffed to blow away the iconic reputation of Harvey Weinstein's lawyer David Boies. Also, Boies had been prominently in the loop in the legal matters of now-crashed Theranos founded by Elizabeth Holmes. Her trial on 11 criminal counts is scheduled for August 4, 2020. (Boies and Holmes parted ways earlier in a dispute about how to approach a regulatory issue).

As everyone knows, Boies remains in high demand.

The right of all human beings in America to a defense is at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. On July 4th, we will publicly display how proud we are to be a part of all that. Fireworks will be the loudest voice in the nation proclaiming our patriotism. 

In the field of public relations, though, there can be reputational damage from representing alleged miscreants. That's a different game. And it can be a dangerous branding sandbox to play in. 

The sixth amendment doesn't include a right to the favorable positioning and packaging of the situation in the media. 

So, Bob Dilenschneider, who had been Ailes personal public relations representative, and his team, including long-time loyalist Joan Avagliano, might be a bit jittery this summer Sunday.

AdWeek outed that it was Dilenschneider who placed the pricey ad in The New York Times Book Review section for the vanity biography of Ailes - "Off Camera." 

If it looks, reads, and smells like a Machiavellian scheme it well might be just that. The objective, it could be concluded, was to distract attention from Sherman's new release in 2014 "The Loudest Voice in the Room."

The problem was this: The vanity biography "Off Camera" had been published a year before.

Weird then that there would be that kind of expensive ad - a year later. No fools, members of the media investigated and pounced. That resulted in negative publicity for both Ailes (was he afraid of that skinny kid Sherman?) and for Dilenschneider as public affairs strategist (so ham-handed, Bob).

And, of course, it was the best kind of publicity for "The Loudest Voice in the Room." The caper sure did backfire. 

Others who are not lawyers per se could also get a big chunk taken out of their brand tonight. It could reach all the way to the top - Murdoch.

What did he know and when did he know it.

In the past few years Murdoch has had health incidents, ranging from a serious fall to pneumonia. Will any negatives from the Showtime "The Loudest Voice in the Room"  be the tipping point in having him announce his retirement? Shareholders may demand that. 

It will be interesting if the conservative Drudge Report headlines with the social network response to the show and how he frames all that. Matt Drudge is no ideologue. He's a businessperson. And the fallout could be a major story which brings new kinds of traffic to the site. Who knows, for that Drudge might even bring back the flashing blue light.

Exactly the right tone and content for all your communications. Complimentary consultation janegenova374@gmail.com.