Law And More

Gilded Age Ethos - Extreme Loneliness in Most Careers, Not Just Law

The focus is on money.

That's the reality of the current Gilded Age. 

It permeates most career paths.

That single-minded pursuit of money, of course, leads to the extreme professional loneliness of the second decade of the 21st century.

That's because, face it, with so many colleagues chasing the money, whom can you trust?

The context is totally competitive.

No longer is there certainty that cooperation will generate mutual success. Instead there is the high probability that one party will seize the opportunity and run with it - solo.  

Examples of just that are detailed in the new book "Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption." By Vicky Ward, it captures a professional universe consisting of silos. The depiction resonates. The book, which you can order here, ranks high on Amazon: 9,715.

In Law.com, Lizzy McLellan puts the spotlight on loneliness in the legal sector per se. One major factor is, yes, the high visibility of the prestige metric - Profit Per Partner (PPP).

McLellan quotes Manhattan psychotherapist William Meyerhofer, who had practiced law. He confirms the importance of that number. Many in law school make the decision what law firm to apply to based on PPP. 

Once they do make it into the law firm with the high PPP they get locked into the isolation box. 

To begin with, the nature of law is adversarial. So, no, you can't befriend lawyers outside the firm. They and you could be on opposite sides of a lawsuit or negotiation. No way should they understand what makes you tick or your vulnerabilities - essentials of friendship. 

Next, there is the increase in lateral moves. Some of that is because there are fewer equity partners. To go after the real money - that is, becoming an equity partner - you may have to do a lateral. That means, though, you won't be doing much bonding internally.

And, third, there is the necessity of piling up those billable hours. Doing that usually means working alone, fiercely concentrating on the task at hand. Small talk, a prelude to building a relationship, eats into that time to accumulate the hours.

As long as the ethos of the Gilded Age persists, so will loneliness. That, in turn, generates clinical depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. 

That value system could be blown to a billion bits, though. How? Via a severe recession. Since there will be so much less money to pursue, many will just have to give up. They could return to the joy of human connection.

And, a whopper of an economic downturn is what the World Economic Forum indicates is possible. It could be worse than the 2008 global crash. 

In what were then the worst of times for human beings, novelist Charles Dickens hammered the meme of the milk of human kindness.

Once Ebenezer Scrooge opened himself to that value he was no longer all alone. That saved him, including from himself. 

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

 

 

Wealthy Builders of Facebook Can Bring It Down

How the narrative has changed.

The Facebook story had been one of global connection. Sort of the text/photo playout of the kids who wanted to give the world a Coke.

That was then.

Now, as Nick Bolton hammers in Vanity Fair, the narrative has shifted to diatribes about fake news, digital addiction, and data privacy breaches. 

The current question is: What or who can bring down Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg?

For a while it was assumed that Congress would move in on him. His poor public speaking skills would signal to Congress, when he testified, that he was vulnerable. So, go after him. But, no, Zuckerberg reskilled in that competence niche. Call off the dogs.

Now the focus for ousting Zuckerberg and dismantling his empire has shifted to those who helped build the social network. They range from Chris Hughes to Nick Krieger. Facebook made them very wealthy. They have the resources, analogous to a rich plaintiff, to keep at it until the adversary gives up. 

Bolton recommends that they roll on Facebook and reveal all to Congress in a public way. Of course, there will be plenty of media.

It could happen, and quickly, companies will be afraid to advertise on Facebook.

Wholesome citizens will pull their pages down.

Parents will forbid their children from posting on Instagram, which Facebook owns.

In capitalism, you direct the Invisible Hand to aim for your adversary's source of revenue. Punch at it hard and keep punching.

Harvard Business School has an elective - Reimagining Capitalism.

An enterprising HBS professor with a conscience can launch another elective - Reimagining the Social Network. Guest lecturers could be Hughes, et al.

Cartoonists could depict Zuckerberg being tarred and feathered, then fleeing town.

And, never again, if we search the internet for apartments in Mobile, Alabama will, pronto, ads for them pop up on the social network. 

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

 

If David Sanford's Clients Win: Men in Law Firms Will Have to Give Up Power and Money

Gender bias litigation in law firms has become David Sanford's signature. He is a partner at Sanford Heisler Sharp.

Though that might seem a narrow niche in rights lawsuits it could be a game-changer in gender matters throughout the workplace in America.

That's because, as Sanford hammers in a Law.com podcast, the common thread in those complaints is that men in power sustain the system of putting, keeping, and promoting men in power.

If Sanford's clients win, men will have to give up power - as well as wealth. Here you can listen to the podcast hosted by Viva Chin.

Why are there more lawsuits being filed by female associates and partners? Sanford indicates that #MeToo may or may not be a factor. 

Instead he is more definite about factors such as:

Increased knowledge of rights

More willingness to join with colleagues in putting together a complaint, that is, filing a class action

The greater availability of witnesses who agree to testify.

A lawsuit represented by Sanford Heisler usually begins with a web submission. That puts in play a rigorous vetting process. What the law firm lawyers review includes:

•  Are there adequate documentation and supporting witnesses
•  Are the issues applicable to a class
•  What is the statute of limitations
•  What is the jurisdiction
•  Are the plaintiffs "likable," in the event the complaint goes to trial? That's a key matter with juries. However, most complaints settle.
•  Are the potential damages enough to support the large cost of litigation?

However, Sanford notes that intent doesn't have to be proved.

What is the focus is the system.

Those who perceive their careers shortchanged by bias used to blame themselves. Now they are more aware of how a male-dominated power system operates. 

Sanford Heisler didn't start out in this niche. Its specialization has begun with employment issues involving race. There was a shift to gender bias after the firm won the $250 million jury verdict in litigation against Novartis.

Currently, the high-profile class action litigation Sanford Heisler is handing is "Nilab Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day."

Part of the media attention comes from the puzzling situation that the defendant Jones Day is representing itself. Yet, the public relations issues, that is branding stakes, associated with the complaint keep growing. Here is a copy of the complaint. Going pro se might have been an error in judgment.

Hunch: It could be what goes on in class action and individual litigation will end gender bias in the workplace, not the #MeToo movement.

The results could go down in history as Power Outage.

Experts on power dynamics such as Stanford Graduate Business School professor Jeffery Peffer could analyze that disruption as the major development of the second and third decade of the 21st century.

In 2010, Peffer published the book "Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't." Obviously, the meme resonates. Nine years later the book still ranks on Amazon at 28,836. Here you can order it from Amazon.

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

 

"The Hero's Farewell" - From Jack Welch to David Lat

Power is heady.

The misfit Puritans made business one of the most powerful institutions in the new land. Actually it became the nation's shadow religion.

The economy they put together from scratch become the world's top dog. 

So, from the get-go, the leaders in business - often called "chief executive officers" - found it difficult to let go of that power when the job ended.

They still do.

Aging media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and investment genius Warren Buffett are not putting out there any signs of leaving.

Also, former head of legal media site Abovethelaw - David Lat - still has at least one foot in that sandbox. Maybe more.

Lat is now an employee at legal executive search firm Lateral Link.  The title is "managing director" but that's not being the number-one any more. 

The transition from number-one to an employee, by its very nature, represents a tricky crossroads.  Here is my analysis of some of that. 

"The Hero's Farewell, by management expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, captures that struggle. If former leaders don't navigate the shift just right, the implications are grim.

Their overall career could blow up.

More to the point, the business could flounder.

One has to wonder if Jack Welch had inflicted that darkness on himself and GE. He seemed to be unable to let go. GE has been in severe distress. The legacy of both is in play.

Constituencies with interests invested in those businesses in which the number-one departs might create a five-year rule.

That is, even though the former leaders might own stock (and a lot of it) they are banned from all official input for 60 months.

That includes no seat on the board.

Speaking to the media about the company is forbidden.

And, no organizing a stockholder movement to regain power.

As the platitude screams: We live in interesting times. How former business leaders manage their farewell is at the top of the list of fascinations. 

Full Disclosure: Recently I had a negative experience with Lateral Link.

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

The Robert H. Strausses - So Much for Myth That Only Loser Types Are Targeted for Sexual Abuse

"Per a yearlong investigation conducted by Perkins Coie law firm, between the 1970s and 1990s, Ohio State doctor Richard H. Strauss targeted at least 177 male students ..." - Amanda Arnold, Crime Section of New York Magazine, May 17, 2019. Here is the article.

By now there have been many many Robert H. Strauss sagas of long-term sexual abuse of diverse kinds of victims. For instance, one recent investigation of the Boy Scouts of America found 12,254 cases of sexual abuse of members from 1944 through 2016. Here is that report from Fortune.

Obviously, what has to be blown up is the myth that only loser types become targets for sexual assault.

The reality is that in certain times in our lives or in certain contexts, we all could be vulnerable. 

The college kids probably just wanted to get through and get their degrees. They knew they needed the BA or BS. Because they were locked in the system, of course, they were targets. And most likely equal opportunity ones.

In the setting of an organization that society told you was wholesome, there is enormous vulnerability. Those boys didn't have to come from "broken homes" or be emotionally retarded to be preyed upon. They just had to be there, trusting.

Therefore, what's got to stop is saddling sexual-misconduct victims with some variation of the loser identification. 

Ronan Farrow's detailed exposes in The New Yorker of alleged sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves present myriad well-put together females who somehow got into the loop. Their vulnerability seems to be simply that they were in a glam industry. No surprise, those with powers would consider them prey.

Now we know that sexual abuse is widespread. 

It's been around a long time.

And it will remain a fixture in all parts of life until communities, organizations, and the legal system figure out how to deter it. That includes what goes on in families. By their very littleness, all children are vulnerable. 

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

 

The Media Innovator's Dilemma - From Ted Turner to David Lat

They build something that disrupts the media industry. 

The innovation works.

The experience is totally heady, with great influence. After all, it's said that media - not government, business or even technology - is the most powerful force in civilization. 

Then they sell that media outlet or simply move on to try out another role. What could play out next could be labeled The Media Innovator's Dilemma. 

For creator of 24/7 cable television news - Ted Turner - there was no next after he sold CNN.  He became just another businessperson whose former outsized presence went poof. Publicly, he indicated he regretted the sale. From then on, Turner seemed in mourning. And for a while, CNN's ratings plummeted. 

In the niche - legal media - the innovator had been creator of Abovehthelaw (ATL) David Lat. That began in 2006.

Officially he has left that role and become what is really a salesperson's job at headhunting firm Lateral Link. Its playing field is the legal sector.

Of course, that also constitutes a shift from being the boss to being an employee.

So far, Lat seems not to be able to totally let go of the legacy. He posts on ATL. It's in connection with his current headhunting  role, leveraging the aura of the innovation in hopes of developing new business. But, still, a clean break might have signaled amazing confidence in what is next.

As an employee, Lat won't be in charge. Instead he had to get the hang of fitting in to someone else's organizational culture. That's challenging.

In more rigid times in business, corporate employers hesitated hiring former entrepreneurs. They were wary that the transition might be impossible. That was the time of the Organizational Man (and Woman).

Since then, of course, careers paths have become less linear. More founders are parachuting into organizational functions. 

At best Lat could become a thought leader in the world of career strategies in the legal industry.

That's different than being a presence in media.

In his current role, his success depends on body count: How many placements he can make. Yeah, it's business, not mission of changing how news and commentary are positioned and packaged. The organization measures success in terms of that business metric. Either you make the sale or you don't make the sale. The game is binary. 

Lat could succeed at being a headhunter. He could adjust to employee status. He could also make more money than he had in media. But gone with his choice to give up ATL is the unique influence he had.

Media is the loudest voice in just about every context. That "loudest voice" is how journalist Gabriel Sherman summed up Fox News founder Roger Ailes. Here that book can be ordered from Amazon. According to some reports, after being ousted from Fox, Ailes was conferring with deep pockets such as Peter Thiel, who funded "Hogan v. Gawker," to fund launching a competitor to Fox. No, Ailes didn't plan to get a job in someone else's media outlet. 

Also, there is the issue if ATL, like CNN, will shift into a downward trajectory after the founder leaves. Part of the innovator's genius is a good head for the business of media. Are those business smarts embedded in ATL? The ATL DNA was Lat's genetic engineering. 

My hunch is that Lat could have moderate success in the headhunting space. But it's the media innovator's dilemma not to be able to make peace with the decline in influence.

Meanwhile, it would be shrewd reputation management for Lat to let go of ATL, in rebranding himself as a leader in executive search. Turner seemed incapable of that kind of reimagining his professional identity.

As for ATL, the niche of legal media seems ripe for another innovation. It could or could not come from the folks at ATL. A severe downturn can create demand for a fresh kind of analysis and presentation of issues. 

Full Disclosure: Since the late 1980s, I have been an entrepreneur. There I found extreme success versus organizational life. Recently I had a negative experience with Lateral Link. 

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

 

Tony Robbins - Will BuzzFeed Investigation Do to Him What The New Yorker Ones Did to Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves?

Law firm for celebrities Lavely & Singer denies it all. Among its clients is Bill Cosby. 

The "it" is the allegation of inappropriate behavior by mega guru Tony Robbins. That ranges from alleged verbal abuse of audience members to sexual misconduct with employees.

But BuzzFeed stands by its findings of an investigation which included leaked recordings, internal documents, and interviews. The focus of all that has been the alleged secret conduct of self-help coach Robbins.

Unlike mental health professionals, coaches in that niche do not require licensing. And Robbins' empire is closely guarded from media. His coaching presentations aren't allowed to be recorded.  Here is that BuzzFeed expose. 

Immediately one wonders if the BuzzFeed investigation will derail the career of Robbins, just like The New Yorker ones by Ronan Farrow did the professional life of Harry Weinstein and Les Moonves. Here is one of Farrow's articles on Weinstein, dated October 2017.

In addition, will these accusations prompt the push to license all those who declare themselves "coaches?" In some sophisticated circles, life coaches have replaced psychotherapists. 

The accusations are, well, colorful. Allegedly Robbins had his followers, as a tutorial, simulate sexual release. He berated those who claimed they were victims of rape. It was contended he would have his employees take notes in his apartment while he was naked, as in exiting the shower. Five women have made those kinds of sexual harassment claims. 

If these allegations can be proven or if Robbins caves and admits them, that would be no surprise. Power can unhinge judgment. Those with it might assume they can "get away" with unethical and illegal actions. They figure the victims will be too frightened to snitch. 

This story certainly has legs. The immediate issue is: Will it deliver a blow right now to Robbins' business interests? The #MeToo movement still has momentum. 

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

 

"Jane Smith, et al. v. United Healthcare and United Behavioral Health" - America No Land for Mental Illness/Addiction

Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted Kennedy, was the champion on this one: He helped push into law the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

Supposedly that was to create a level playing field in how healthcare insurers covered mental illness and sundry compulsions, including drug-taking. 

As Bloomberg reports in a major article, that's not what has been unfolding.

Over the phone and in the legal system there is a brutal battle to receive treatment which is paid in full or in part by insurance.

A recent high profile lawsuit has been the class action "Jane Smith v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. and United Behavioral Health." Here is a copy of the complaint. So far it's been a victory for the plaintiff class but few expect that decision to endure. A decertification of the class is anticipated on appeal. 

In that litigation, reports Modern Healthcare:

"A federal judge ruled ... that United Behavioral Health breached its fiduciary duty to patients by using unreasonable and overly restrictive guidelines to make coverage decisions for tens of thousands of mental health and substance abuse patients."

Meanwhile, as Bloomberg hammers, America is in a mental health and addiction crisis. All too frequently that ends in suicide. To that we can add: Violence in schools, the workplace, and churches.

Yet, the elephant in the room is the question: What is effective treatment for mental illness and abuse of substances, be it booze or food (or the lack of food as in anorexia)?

So little is still known about that. Among the families of those with those syndromes there are familiar stories of the young adult having 30-day (expensive) stays in multiple rehab facilities - and continually relapsing. Death is not uncommon. That can happen through what appears to be an "accidental" overdose or suicide. 

Also, there is the issue of transparency. As I explain in this article, both insurers and clients must demand more detailed information about the mindset of the healthcare professional, what clinical approaches are being used, why, the expected outcomes, progress so far, and what alternatives are being considered. 

The insurers are not necessarily the bad guys.

Perhaps the real villain is the lack of useful research on what works and what doesn't. Obviously, not much is working.

That even applies to the "free" mode of treatment - Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Too often it is the model for treatment in rehab centers. Stays at those rehabs can be billed at a thousand bucks a day. In a very real sense we are all paying for that.

Also, courts continue to "sentence" substance abusers to AA.

However, AA's success rate, according to addiction specialists, ranges between 8% and 12%. Now classic is the 2105 The Atlantic article analyzing the poor track record of AA. Here is that manifesto. 

Sure, let the court cases continue. Legal rulings have been a game-changer in America.

But perhaps what might be the most productive move would be to conduct a multi-disciplinary investigation (including hard-nosed business types) of what is going on in understanding, treating, and paying the bill for mental illness and substance abuse. 

Until answers are found families will be in turmoil, careers will be derailed, violence will occur, and lots of folks will die. That's just the way it is. But that's not the way it has to be. 

Full Disclosure: From age 11 I have suffered chronic clinical depression. You bet, along the way I received pricey but what I assess as unhelpful treatment. What has been effective is no-cost mindfulness. When my mood is darkening, I stop my day and meditate for two or three minutes. I was trained in mindfulness, without any fee, at the Zen Center, near Yale, in New Haven, Connecticut. 

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

 

Yes, 2018 Was a Very Good Year - But, Since 2019 May Not Be, Legal Sector Rethinking Associate Compensation

Recent reports by Citi Private Bank and Thomson Reuters document a 2019 trend in large law firms: Demand is flat and expenses are up.

That means for the majority of them raising entry-level associate compensation to $190k in profitable 2018 could bite them in the butt in 2019. In Law.com, Dan Packel presents this problem, which could turn urgent. 

Because of worldwide uncertainties, the deal flows have slowed. That means that a lot of lucrative transactional assignments which would have been made remain on hold.

Litigation is still as strong as in 2018. However, if corporate clients sense a recession is imminent they could delay filing lawsuits. 

Packel notes that there will be a small number of firms which can weather any of the 2019 storms. But the others may be forced to revisit their assumptions about compensation.

Already out there is the notion that law firms don't have to move in lock step with those who boost compensation significantly. They could resist and probably, if they are known for doing quality legal work, still attract job applicants from the T-14.

Many newbie law graduates are more interested in intellectually stimulating work and experience than a lot of money. Sure, they need "enough" to be able to live in a metro area and pay off student loans. The question for law firms is: So, what is enough?

This issue of enough is one that is resonating globally. This is a time when everyone from think tanks to workers on the factory floor are becoming critical of the standard assumptions of capitalism. Harvard Business School has an elective titled "Reimagining Capitalism."

The American Bar Association might conduct a panel titled "Reimagining Compensation."

Maybe this is no coincidence. Two days ago I received "permission" from my executive coach that it was going to be okay for me to accept communications assignments which don't pay top dollar. I want to do them because it's the kind of work I love. Yet capitalism had socialized me to max my earning power.  

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

 

Abortion in America - Probably a Goner

Law is not a composite of Platonic forms stored out there in some mystical universe that human beings struggle to understand and interpret. Incidentally, that Platonism had been the fundamental of Roman Catholicism. The Pope, Catholic dogma held, had access to that realm of absolutes.

Instead, a legal system is shaped and reshaped by community values. Currently those community values are tilting to banning abortion as a mode of birth control in the U.S.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, after the positive House vote, the Senate in Alabama approved 25 to 6 making abortions illegal in the state under most conditions. The one exception would be health reasons. The governor Kay Ivey may or may not sign it. 

That legislative move is intended to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge "Roe v. Wade." Given the addition of Bret Kavanaugh to SCOTUS, antiabortion supporters have a shot at overturning that ruling. 

What's going on in AL reflects community values in many other states. Here in the Midwest the highway is full of antiabortion billboards. They are well-done so one has to assume the advocates are well-funded enough to parachute in advertising talent.

But AL seems the most organized in the strategy to have SCOTUS revisit "Roe v. Wade." Given community values at this time, abortion could be a goner in the U.S.

In addition to moral values, there might be an economic one pushing this initiative. The headline in this morning's media is that U.S. births have fallen to the lowest level since 1980s. Here you can read an example of the coverage.

Aging government leaders get it that they need lots of births to eventually restock the workforce and fund their entitlements such as Social Security. Otherwise, payments could be reduced - or go poof.

In addition, the U.S. is about 70% a consumer economy. It needs more babies born now to buy autos and houses tomorrow. In real peril is the higher education system. There are fewer in the traditional college age pool. As Education Dive monitors, more private colleges and universities are shutting down. 

Obviously, babies are good for business and the U.S. is primarily about business. It's in terms of ROI - return on investments - that we socialize even the young to think.

Mandating more babies to be born is good for business.

UPDATE:

Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill. Let the court fights begin. Yes, this issue will likely make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court 

Here is more coverage from the media.

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