Law And More

Don McGahn - Can Trump Administration Continue to Block His Testimony During Impeachment Hearings

When then Jones Day partner Don McGahn represented Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign he probably never anticipated what kinds of loops he would be part of.

The most recent looping is that he has been part of the former Trump Administration officials - McGahn went on to head legal in the White House - being barred from testifying at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment.

Law and Crime reports that a lawyer representing the House Democrats on the Committee Douglas Letter filed a motion with a federal judge. It requests a speeded-up ruling whether McGahn can be compelled to testify.

Currently, McGahn is back as a partner at Jones Day. Since he is so high profile, if he does testify, viewership will soar for that particular hearing. 

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

 

Shift from Public Relations to Legal - Darkness Fell Fast Post-BBC Interview of Prince Andrew

The fallout from Prince Andrew's BBC interview doesn't only negatively impact the brand - and future - of the British royals. 

In addition, as the Daily Mail reports, the situation has rapidly transformed into a legal one. Public relations expert Jason Stein had warned Andrew not to do the interview. But Andrew did. Now this. Darkness has fallen fast.

The this is that players in the legal sandbox are discussing the vulnerability of Andrew to be extradited to the United States to "cooperate" with officials.

The alleged sexual misconduct occurred in the U.S., not the UK.

Being a royal doesn't confer immunity to Andrew.

And currently prosecutors and plaintiff lawyers have what is being labeled "ammunition" to use in questioning Andrew. That could be under oath. And the content of the BBC interview could be part of cross-examination.

From the get-go in the BBC interview, those of us in the communications industry picked right up on Andrew's absolutely wrong tone and no evidence of sincere regret about whom he chose to be on his international network.

Regarding the latter, more and more of us are aware of the dynamics of mirror neurons. The research about them proved out that we human beings affect each other, cell by cell. Years ago, in the pre-scientific age, mothers and religious organizations warned about "bad companions." The Roman Catholic Church even classified those as "near occasions of sin."

Remorse for behavior is required by most social norms. Also, as lawyers know, they are expected in most courts of law. It is contended that AdmissionsGate miscreant Felicity Huffman got off relatively easy because she was contrite. Former law partner Gordon Caplan also adopted that persona.

Andrew did not.

Singlehandedly, Andrew could bring down the institution of the royals. Those in the UK who pony up the funding for much of that may decide to pull the plug.

Bring in top marketing and public relations firms to create a fresh approach to UK tourism. A former English major, I could advise on beefing up drama performances of the dramas of William Shakespeare. 

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

Beyond the Pizza Defense - Push for Prince Edward to Discuss Epstein Looping under Oath

During a relatively slow news weekend, the BBC interview with Prince Edward about being in the Jeffrey Epstein loop is getting major media coverage. That ranges from tabloid Daily Mail, with multiple articles, to the more staid The Guardian.

Essentially, the Prince provided what will go down in history as The Pizza Defense.

He claimed that he couldn't have been present having sex with Virginia Giuffre in London because he was at the Pizza Express in Woking, then working  quietly at home.

A world made sophisticated about law through pop culture is having none of all that. Following the unsatisfying interview, at least in terms of clarifying facts about the Prince's activities, there is a demand that he has a redo. This time, under oath. 

Telling falsehoods under oath results in legal consequences.

Also, there could be the negative branding effect on The Royals. Should a severe global economic downturn occur, the UK might decide it no longer wants to financially and emotionally support that institution.

Yes, it brings in tourism but so does the staging of the plays of William Shakespeare. As humans weary of tech, there could be a flight back to the artistic. Who knows, a Shakespeare requirement could return to the curriculum of private colleges. 

Meanwhile, experts in public relations might assess doing that BBC interview as a mistake for Prince Andrew. The barbarians are now closer to the gate. No longer unthinkable are what institutions and personalities will be destroyed.

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

 

Homeless, Business, Law - Las Vegas Tries Something Out

Las Vegas, like so many metro areas, is undergoing the perfect storm. 

There is growing homeless created by:

• Landlord Nation, that is, high rents with no caps for the percentage of increase at lease-renewal time.
• Substance abuse, and not only opioids. Attend any 12-step meeting and there is plenty of speaker presentations about winding up on the street because of booze.
• Unemployment and underemployment triggered by a volatile global economy driven by technology
• Mental illness, much of which science doesn't yet understand. Finally, it is admitting clinical depression is a chronic disease. 

That's no new story, of course.

Also, not new is that the realities of the homeless camped on the streets had been hurting local businesses. For Las Vegas one of those businesses is tourism. No couple from the UK wants to step over human bodies to get into X or Y commercial establishment. Through word of mouth, the message could go out: Skip Las Vegas. 

So, it shouldn't be a surprise that Las Vegas is trying out something legally to address this business problem. There is little or no humanity sprinkled in. As the Daily Mail reports, the new law forbids living sleeping on the downtown (this doesn't apply to the strip) streets if a bed is available in a shelter. There is a fine of $1,000. Haha, as if the homeless can buy their way out of the legal pickle.

Those putting together the law hoped to anticipate legal challenges through the provision of "if a bed is available." A law without that had been struck down in Boise, Idaho by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Of course, human rights groups are already active opposing this one. What some may have in mind is the poignant true saga captured in "Stuart: A Life Backwards."

That started out as a book, then it became a theatrical production and movie. By Alexander Masters, it chronicles the life on the streets of a man who, since childhood, endured profound emotional and spiritual suffering. The UK social system would provide housing for him and he made it his business to untangle himself from that and return to his social network on the street. One meme is: the right to live without a roof over one's head.  

Also, there is the horror of the shelters themselves. No, the street isn't safe. But shelters aren't either. Also, being in them can rob the soul, while taking care of the body, of human dignity. The other occupants can be emotional and spiritual downers.

Through wrong information when I was traveling in England, I wound up spending a night in a shelter on the East End. What popped in my head: No human being should have to provide for his or her physical needs in this way.

Later, in the U.S. I did volunteer work collecting and transporting food from local grocers to shelters, including those housing whole families. I wondered why there couldn't be a better solution to not being able to pony up rent in the U.S.? 

More recently, when running two businesses in southwestern Arizona, I encountered Millennials who feared homelessness more than anything. That was a reason they held on to low-paying jobs rather than taking career risks and/or remained in relationships which did pay the rent.

Obviously, homelessness should be a major issue in Election 2020. Meanwhile legal experts will track this Las Vegas law.

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

 

DLA Piper's Crisis Management - More Risk than Reward?

Increasingly, BigLaw is going public in the management of litigation against it - and the fallout in the court of public opinion. 

In "Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day," for example, the defendant posted on this lawsuit on its website. That was atypical for a large law firm whose organizational culture's signature is being secret. That ethos is referred to as a "black box."

More recently, DLA Piper has been caught up in a high-profile #MeToo allegation.

That was kicked off when partner Vanina Guerrero filed a complaint with the EEOC. She contended sexual misconduct by rainmaker partner Louis Lehot and requested to be released from the firm's mandatory arbitration policy to resolve this matter in the court of law.

Like Jones Day, the law firm has pushed back in a very public way.

At the end of October, DLA Piper filed a formal report with the EEOC. It contains what the law firm contends it discovered about Guerrero during an internal investigation. Her legal team at Wigdor call all that a smear campaign.

Well, what is in the EEOC filing by DLA Piper certainly could be damaging to Guerrero. Presented is an email she wrote to herself in a sort of stream of consciousness about her strategy in managing a relationship with Lehot. The tone and content seem Machiavellian. She explicitly discusses how through "control" she can have the powerful rainmaker Lehot advance her career. In a sense, he seems like a victim of, yes, female scheming. The legal world is puzzled why a seasoned lawyer would put this sort of thing in writing and on her law firm's email system. Any first semester IL knows never ever to do that.

But, the undertow in this ongoing soap opera is this: What are the risks and rewards of DLA Piper's moving this internal dispute beyond legalities to the court of public opinion?

As any crisis management expert knows, the risks are extraordinary. Crisis, even a minor one and this is not longer minor, puts the organization under the microscope.

Once the step is taken into the court of public opinion, there is going back. And the members of the media, not necessarily the supposed facts, shape the narrative. Some believe that media, not the law, not government, not the wealthy is the most powerful institution in the world.

Well, it's the stories media outlets put out there which constituencies, ranging from lawyers considering a lateral to DLA Piper to prospective clients, consume. 

Given that this story has legs, aspects of it will be played out over and over again, on a regular basis. DLA Piper has lost control. Members of the media determine what angles to take.

The rewards aren't many. As a large law firm DLA Piper has the resources to, from the get-go, manage this whole ball of wax in a private way. Its silence in the court of public opinion could have motivated constituencies to begin to question Guerrero. 

It could have simply taken action, as is expected in a crisis. And that it did. Good start. It parted ways with Lehot and put Guerrero on paid leave.

Then, it could have pulled back to focus on the legalities. Meanwhile, it is retaining its mandatory arbitration policy, which a growing number of law firms have dropped.

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

 

DLA Piper Soap - Tuesday's Episode Positions Louis Lehot as Victim, Vanina Guerrero as Ruthless Player

The BigLaw soap opera DLA Piper/Lehot/Guerrero produced an amazing episode Tuesday, October 29, 2019.

Based on the investigation by law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, DLA Piper submitted a 122-page response to Vanina Guerrero's allegations to the EEOC.

DLA Piper's own allegations are backed up with Guerrero's own emails and some photographic material. Here are the details from Law.com.

Essentially, what DLA Piper contends is that Guerrero set up the relationship with Lehot to advance her career. Her objective was to be able to "control" him. "Control" was the term she used in a stream-of-consciousness email she sent to herself.

Yes, it seems odd that the lawyer that she is would put anything like that in writing. Every first year law students has that down from the get-go as a never-to-do.

Given that Guerrero comes across as a ruthless player, Lehot appears to be, well, a kind of victim. In a sense, he might have gotten played.

The real story could be the inverse of the King Lear drama by William Shakespeare. On the heath the self-pitying Lear cries out that he is more sinned against than sinning. The audience knows that isn't the situation. But, when it comes to Lehot, it may be on the money. He may have indeed been more sinned against than sinning. After all, he got pushed out of the law firm. 

If the evidence turns out to prove Guerrero orchestrated a relationship which may or may not have gotten out of hand, the #MeToo movement can experience a setback.

Meanwhile, members of the media have in the DLA Piper/Lehot/Guerrero story the gift that keeps giving.

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

Black Turtlenecks, Old White Men, The Superlawyer - Halloween (hopefully) Ends an Era in Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley is classy enough to laugh at itself.

That self became a caricature when supposed The Great Innovator Elizabeth Holmes imploded. Her trial will be coming up and after that she could spend lots of time in the slammer. There her work detail could be in the prison infirmary taking blood.

How Silicon Valley is enjoying this ugly play out of the tech promise to change the world is costuming itself as Holmes this Halloween. That means, reports BusinessInsider, retail is running out of her signature black turtleneck. 

The irony about that turtleneck is profound.

Anyone who was connecting that dots wouldn't have invested funds or hope in Holmes' enterprise Theranos. That was positioned and packaged as revolutionizing the blood testing process - and, therefore, the business. Old white men like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz sat on its board. Superlawyer David Boies represented Holmes (until they had a falling out over how to manage a regulatory issue).

What the dot-connectors would have put together was that anyone imitating Steve Jobs was never going to accomplish what Jobs had accomplished.

In his iconic book for entrepreneurs "Zero to One," venture capitalist Peter Thiel makes clear not to set out to do the next Facebook. There already is a Facebook. Try something new.

Yesyesyes, the black turtleneck is a symbol of how things can go very wrong when those not truly innovative play in the tech sandbox. 

Post Halloween the black turtlenecks should be collected and shipped to the Smithsonian. Laid out with imagination, they can make quite an exhibit. That could be a cloth monument to a specific time in the tech industry in America. 

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

Jurors as Change Agents - How Plaintiff Bar Casts Spells, How Defense Bar Can Push Back

The public began to notice extreme verdicts against defendants in "Hulk Hogan v. Gawker." Plaintiff Hogan had been awarded $141 million.

More recently, there had been the $8 billion punitive damage verdict in the Risperdal case against Johnson & Johnson.

Since pop culture, ranging from "Court TV to the New York Post, are favs on Main Street, it's necessary for those in the sophisticated legal sector to explain what might be going on. Jury pools are made up of members from Main Street.

The latest comes from Law.com. Essentially, it posits that the plaintiff bar has been successful in reaching what science classifies as the "reptile brain." Embedded there is the flight-or-flight response.

Plaintiff lawyers frame a case so that jurors perceive themselves as potentially in the same pickle as the plaintiff. So, they are motivated to respond with anger. In the process, they can come to view themselves as change agents. They will render a verdict which sends the message: Don't do something like this again. 

Of course, that's a heady experience. It can bring enormous satisfaction. Who doesn't want to be a hero?

The Law.com analysis points out that defense attorneys can push back by showing jurors that their clients are good corporate citizens. That entails masterful positioning and packaging. Yes, it has high public relations content. 

The challenge is this: Historically the defense bar hasn't been as skilled as the plaintiff one in presenting the emotional undertow of a case. Defense lawyers tend to live in their heads and the rules of evidence. The plaintiff bar knows how to connect with other human beings. 

In addition to learning to engage, defense lawyers must also unleash a campaign to educate jurors about the importance of being "fair and impartial." It's not their mission to change the system - or the world. Their focus must be on that one specific case.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff bar will continue to work its emotional voodoo. Myriad more over-the-top verdicts can be expected.

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

 

DLA Piper Soap Opera - Wednesday's Episode

In the ongoing DLA Piper soap opera, today's episode features Leah M. Christensen. 

On Abovethelaw.com, legal journalist Kathryn Rubino describes the plot line. 

Former DLA Piper Professional Responsibility Counsel and current professor at the University of San Diego Law School, Christensen has filed a complaint with the EEOC. It's about former rainmaking partner Louis Lehot and is the third filed.

Essentially she describes his behavior as abusive.

When, for example, she explained to him the interpretation of an ethics rule he might have been violating, he allegedly called her a "dumb bitch."

Overall, she labels him a "bully."

To get what he wanted in the law firm allegedly he would engage in temper tantrums. Because of his large book of business, those who could have corrected that situation allegedly looked the other way.

Christensen indicates other women might also file similar complaints. After all, Lehot is gone. He and DLA Piper parted ways.

This is exactly the kind of saga sophisticated publications such as Vanity Fair or The New Yorker tend to chronicle. Could Gabriel Sherman try his hand at that and title the investigative journalism "The Loudest and Crudest Voice in BigLaw?"

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

Amber Guyger - There Might Be Appeal

In Texas, there is a 30-day window for lawyers to file a notice or intent to appeal.

Amber Guyger's lawyer Michael Mowla has done just that. Here are more details from CNN.

In itself, that is just a formality. But it triggers speculation that she might appeal. Currently she is serving a 10-year sentence, with the possibility of parole, in a prison in a TX prison. 

Post-sentencing things got weird in the courtroom.

Not only did the victim's brother hug her.  So did the judge, along with giving her a bible. The judge's behavior was viewed with concern by some. 

All that drama many observers found unwelcome and inappropriate. 

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