Law And More

California Thanksgiving 2020 - Norman Rockwell Doesn't Live There, Not Anymore

This mandate from California's Governor Gavin Newsom could make it to "SNL."

But already, knocked from the entertainment box (and former Jones Day associate) Megyn Kelly is leveraging it as a platform for a comeback. Daily Mail features her vilification of those orders for how the residents of CA have to spend their Thanksgiving. 

Among the rules are:

• Dinner be outside (yes, you can go inside to use the bathroom but only if it has been sanitized)
• Guests limited to 3 households
• People must sit 6 feet apart
• Masks are a must, except when eating
• Duration of dinner not to exceed 2 hours.

No surprise, Kelly, who is operating her own podcast media, ridicules it. As if she couldn't find a more seminal issue. Her tragic flaw is that she can't engage, at least not beyond the brittle Fox News politico persona. And, I have a hunch she won't have much of sustained reach with this podcasting one. 

What's obvious is that the warm and fuzzy type of Normal Rockwell Thanksgiving isn't welcome in CA. Since that state is a trendsetter, Newsom's model can catch on.

So, there the nation will be, at the McDonald's drive-thru each person ordering up 2 turkey burgers, double french fries, small green salad, a sugary beverage and chocolate chip cookies.

And we can enjoy a good belly laugh as we share our horn of plenty with two other households outside in a Midwest winter. Things, as we head into the Winter of COVID-19, maybe won't get better than that. 

Meanwhile, those in the legal community await the court's decision on the request for a dismissal of  the racial bias lawsuit "Christine Crawford, et al. v. McDonald's USA." This is among the high-profile legal actions of 2020. 

Paul Weiss partner and former U.S. Attorney General in the Obama Administration Loretta Lynch filed that dismissal  motion. What makes the case riveting are two things.

On the side of the defense, Lynch is a woman of color.

In addition, there is the central question: Were the more 50 defendants unskilled businesspeople or victims of racial bias?

Brad Karp is the chairman of Paul Weiss. Part of his genius is attracting brandname lawyers such as Lynch to join Paul Weiss. The lateral game is where the big moves are currently. In themselves, laterals are a major legal story of 2020.

Traditionally, in the AmLaw 200, holidays like Thanksgiving (or even one's wedding) are irrelevant. Likely Newsom's mandate won't even trigger a smirk. 

Elsewhere, it could be a flashpoint for those w/o a funny bone.

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Jeffrey Toobin Back in the Soup Again - Theatre of The Private Part

Suspended.

That's the action The New Yorker took to deal with the conduct of its star legal writer Jeffrey Tobin.

As Joe Patrice reports in Abovethelaw, Toobin was accused of showcasing his private part during a Zoom call between members of The New Yorker and WNYC Radio.

Toobin contends that he didn't realize the video was still in progress. However, since he apologized to his wife and family for the appearance of that extra guest on Zoom, few are buying his explanation of inappropriate conduct.

This isn't the first time Toobin has been involved in as scandal because of behavior linked to sexual whatever. The New York Times noted in an article that the married Toobin and lawyer Casey Greenfield have an out-of-wedlock child. There had been a high-profile custody battle connected with that offspring.

The real story here, though, is not the busy life and times of Toobin's private part. Rather it is a public relations one. Can Toobin restore his reputation to the point that he could resume his role as a popular legal journalist?

His appeal comes from his ability to simplify the complexities of law to inform and entertain Main Street. Will that audience abandon Toobin? And is he on short time at the prestigious The New Yorker?

There are plenty of legal journalists out there who can cast spells on those who are fascinated with the America's legal system. Along with Patrice, there are two other legal journalists at ATL who know how to engage. 

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

Kroger Pharma - Unacceptable

Since early June 2020 Enalpril Maleate 2.5 MG has been keeping my best (four-legged) friend LOV alive. He has congestive heart failure. According to information lifted from the Internet, maintained on that med, he has 4 to 14 months of life left. 

Already he had moved into the 5th month. So, given that he could die at any time, I refill the med when the bottle is almost empty. After all, my health insurance doesn't cover it. So, why pay if it will be tossed? 

Late last week I called into Kroger Pharmacy for that refill. The transaction was all processed by automation. The machine told me the prescription would be ready for pickup on Saturday, after 2 P.M. 

I swung by Kroger today - Sunday - for that pick-up.

At the window there was stalling. Several times I had to repeat the information. (Maybe this grocery chain should train staff in listening skills). Then, the bombshell. "They" were out of the med. I went bug-eyed. "But this is for my dog's heart."

The "they" said they would reorder it.

"The dog needs that pill!"

It was left to me to ask when would it come in.

I was informed tomorrow. Believe me, I am not banking on it.

My extreme concern is two-fold:

• Why did "they" not keep in stock a med for the heart?
• Why did "they" not inform me that it was out-of-stock. If they had, I could have called around to other pharmacies where it might have been in stock.

I ask not only animal-rights front lines to investigate Kroger Pharma.

Also, those providing Medicare Supplemental Insurance, such as AARP, should also revisit having Kroger Pharma on its list of approved providers. Had it not been I would never have had my four-footed son's prescription filled there. It seemed more convenient to have all my prescriptions taken care in one place. 

Kroger Pharma and Kroger Grocery - a pox on both your houses. Recently, the grocery wing ran out of those cards necessary to present for the in-store discounts. I had to beg others waiting to be checked-out if I could use their card. Those savings are significant.

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

The Civil War in BigLaw - Dead Wringer for Global Generational Tensions

Media outfits, ranging from establishment Bloomberg Law to advocacy-oriented Abovethelaw, have picked up on the new conflict in BigLaw.

It's showcased in the sustained coverage of which law firms are awarding COVID-19 Appreciation Bonuses and which aren't. 

There is also the questioning of why and how BigLaw firms are representing controversial clients. Out the window is the fundamental that the accused deserve a defense. 

Essentially, it's a civil war.

On one side are the partners.

They control wealth and power - as well as the careers of non-partners. In addition, they could be pulling down annually five-million-plus dollars. That's more than the total compensation for the global general counsel at McDonald's in 2019.

On the other side are the associates and law students who represent cultural change.

Their position of strength (whether they admit it or not) is that within the large law firm they have, relatively speaking, little to lose. The odds are against making partner. Maybe they don't even want that anymore. They could be just playing the game for the experience. Also, their current compensation or what their future compensation as an associate is, compared with partners, peanuts.

Incidentally, the saga of Aaron Charney proved that lawyers can burn bridges and not only land on their feet. They can come out ahead financially. After settling with his former BigLaw employer for alleged sex-orientation bias, Charney could afford a condo in Manhattan. That's in addition to another plum job in BigLaw. 

Meanwhile, in the push-back process associates and law students are learning marketable skills. Those include organizing, looping in allies, assessing and implementing messaging tools and creating brandnames for themselves. About the latter, presence is almost everything in professional life.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama put together a personal brand as a community organizer.

Those kinds of abilities open the door to career paths in politics, leadership in nonprofits, the C-suite in non-traditional corporations and maverick law firms.

That squaring-off between partners and associates mirrors the global upheaval among generations. On an individual level climate change activist Greta Thunberg represents that. Between nations that played out when youth in Hong Kong opposed being controlled by the old guard in China. 

Not that such a conflict is new. There is a vivid visual memory of high noon in 1989 in China's Tiannanmen Square. Years earlier, there was the counterculture movement, symbolized by the British Invasion, that is, the Beatles. In America, that cultural disruption affected institutions ranging from the nuclear family to the academic-industrial complex. 

So?

It makes sense that the career-guidance departments in the T-14 law schools should develop a non-credit seminar titled "Reimagining the Law Firm."

At Harvard Law School, Assistant Dean for Career Services - Mark Webber - might consider piloting such an initiative.

The business reality is this: The law firm will mutate. It's in the self-interest of future lawyers to be thought leaders and/or actual foot soldiers in this civil war. During wars, names are made. Career mobility is extraordinary. To leverage that platitude: A war is a terrible thing to waste. 

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Jones Day: Is It a Target Or Simply Allegedly Arrogant? (also, my beef about tone/content at Heidrick & Struggles)

"Jones Day’s London office has raised the hackles of its staff by allegedly failing to inform most of them about a Covid-19 outbreak that hit attorneys in the office’s corporate and restructuring teams, according to reports." - Rick Mitchell, Bloomberg Law, October 15, 2020.

Media outlets, such as The New York Times, make it their business to pick up on and run with negative developments associated with Jones Day.

For example, gender discrimination lawsuit "Tolton, et al. v. Jones Day, is very high profile. Had Jones Day not been the defendant it might have just rattled around the legal process as just another in workplace bias lawsuit. Also high profile is the lawsuit about alleged bias in paid parental leave "Savignac, Sheketoff v. Jones Day."

There is no ambiguity: Jones Day is excellent at what it does.

Actually, in myriad legal circles, it's assessed as the law firm you don't want to face if you are the opposing counsel.

In lawyerly folklore, the Jones Day attorneys, at all levels, are depicted as selfless monks laboring tirelessly for both the abstract idea of law and for clients. 

All that could make Jones Day a target. 

Success is a hazardous place to be. There's that great line from Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Part II." It's "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

But, also, Jones Day may be making itself a magnet for very bad press. That's because it seems to have a genius for positioning and packaging itself as arrogant. Just one instance of that was posting on its website its push-back on the allegations in "Tolton."

The number-one flaw of Jones Day's "Tolton" statement is this: Both the tone and content are inward-looking. That's not the right communications space to be in when presenting a point of view on a public-interest issue such as gender equality. Think macro. Not just points of law or internal policies. Yes, the expectation is for transcendence. 

When there is a miss on tone and content, not only is that annoying. It throws shade on the brand. That could eventually catch up to Jones Day.

Recently, I bumped into that same kind of stumbling in tone and content with search firm Heidrick & Struggles.

That was as a potential vendor. In the ESG ethos - or the triple bottom line in capitalism - vendors are supposed to matter. 

As I explain here, I was applying for a part-time contract assignment as a career coach. The two communications - one with  a partner of the firm, the other with a member of its in-house legal department - were quite the surprise. 

For a public corporation like Heidrick & Struggles, perhaps it will be up to shareholders to hold Heidrick & Struggles' feet to the fire in how all its functions interact with all constituencies.

Modern Readers reports that Nuveen Asset Management has reduced its stake in Heidrick & Struggles by 14.6%. Zacks Investment Research shifted from buy to hold. ValuEngine downgraded its rating from hold to sell.

Meanwhile, unless Jones Day reviews how it interfaces with the world, it could continue to have a bullseye on its back.

Media outlets unleash negative coverage on Jones Day's whatever that is totally riveting. Such a pattern could not only continue but escalate. A good time will be had by all. That is, until attention is fixated on the trial scheduled for next March for "U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes." 

The Future of Work. Ghostwriting on those issues and coaching for job search, transition, personal branding, re-entry after recovery and reputation restoration. Sliding scale fees. Complimentary consultation (janegenova374@gmail.com)

Amy Cooper Arraigned on False Reporting Charges - In Addition, There Is the Crime of Unlikability

"Amy Cooper, the white woman who falsely accused a Black bird-watcher in May of threatening her life in Central Park, was arraigned Wednesday in Manhattan on false reporting charges." - Emma Tucker, The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2020.

Among the charges is that Amy allegedly informed the police that a black man was trying to assault her. If convicted she faces a year in jail. Meanwhile, the case is being adjourned for a month to negotiate a disposition. 

That's the legal part of this story. 

The other part is what goes on in the court of pubic opinion. On a human level, Amy's "crime" is unlikability. Like all "Karens," she sets off emissions of stinking superiority. 

Likability is an important quality to have. In that iconic book about how Washington D.C. works "The PowerGame" by Hedrick Smith, what was hammered is that likability is a source of power. Obviously, Amy has no access to that.

For her, in the court of public opinion, she will never be forgiven. There is one exception. Her victim Christian Cooper indicated that she has suffered enough. After all, she had lost her good job at Franklin Templeton. In society she is a pariah. Christina didn't rejoice that there were criminal charges.

However, so far, the downward trajectory this Karen hasn't seemed to deter other Karens. They, in all their obnoxiousness, keep popping up in the media. 

Full Disclosure: I went to college - one of those all-women ones - with a number of Karens. Unlike Christian, I wish for them all the suffering available. 

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com

History Is Back - However, It Never Left the Legal Sector

"A bit of perspective.

"Forty years ago (January 1981—think Reagan/Thacher, the introduction of the original IBM PC, and the recent death of double-digit inflation at the merciless and brilliant hands of Paul Volcker), the S&P 500 was 29% made up of energy by market cap.  In 2008 (the GFC), it was still 17% and oil was at $140/barrel." - Bruce MacEwen, "Build Back Better." Adamsmithesq.com, October 12, 2020.

Obviously, Bruce MacEwen is reaching back into the past to make a point about the present - and future.

In the beginning of the cancel culture such as strategy would have been, well, bold. The ethos back then mirrored the dismissal of history by Henry Ford. He blew it off as "bunk." 

Maybe it's the craziness of living on planet earth since March of 2020. Maybe everything is cyclical. But the interest in history has boomeranged back.

Help-wanted ads on Craigslist, for example, are growing in number for the old-fashioned kind of historical research. Not just doing the Survey Monkey thing.

Also, finally, when I attempt to add value to my publishing by including trends from the past, that is getting attention. Lots of it. 

For example, in PinHawk Marketing Brief there is a link to my post - highly historical - about how the patterns of layoffs in BigLaw are dead wringers for what occurred in Corporate America from the late 1970s through the late 1980s. The combination of technology and cost-cutters like Jack Welch disappeared our good jobs. Here is that post. Traffic to it has been heavy. 

So, those in the business of persuasion, yes, use historical data as rhetorical tactics.

Meanwhile, those in the legal sector probably are smirking. The industry operates on a platform of precedents. Sure precedents are overturned but not before they can unleash tremendous power. 

Given the return of history to Main Street, lawyers might take a side door to developing brandnames by giving Ted Talks, blogging, podcasting and becoming a social network influencer discussing how history can cast spells. How to leverage that. How to exorcise the bad parts. And, of course, what to learn 

They can segue into the narratives by citing the profound pull power humans' own family histories have on them. Just consider the saga of feuds. The speakers can show a clip from "The Godfather."

Reflection: Could this revival of history signal we are returning to the age of reason?

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Yes, We're Getting THE TRIAL: Judge Davila Rules "U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes" Moves Forward

"A federal judge [Edward Davila] in California on Tuesday denied bids by Theranos Inc. founder Elizabeth Holmes and former top executive Ramesh 'Sunny' Balwani to dismiss the criminal charges they face in connection with the disgraced blood-testing startup." - Rebecca O'Brien, The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2020.

The new trial date for "U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes" is March 2021.

She, as well as former Theranos executive and her lover Sunny Balwani, have been indicted on two counts of wire-fraud conspiracy and 10 counts of wire fraud. If convicted, each faces up to 20 years in prison. The assumption is that both were aware that the finger-prick technology was flawed, yet pitched it to investors, medical doctors and partner Walgreens.

Holmes' defense team requested the dismissal because, they argued, the prosecution has dragged its feet too long on filing new indictments, some allegations about behavior were too old and the indictment itself had not provided adequate description of the charges. Judge Davilal didn't agree.

The trial is a long-awaited one.

Part of that is the one-time celebrity status of Holmes and the wealth she acquired and lost.

But there is also the grabber that the defendant is a female. That has a wonderful track record for theatre.

The trial of Mary Winkler, who offed her minister husband, transfixed the nation. The tableau her lawyer Steve Farese showcased created so much buzz. It consisted of the wig and platform shoes Mary's husband forced her to wear during sex. She got off with a light sentence. 

Then there was Ellen Pao. She positioned and packaged as a kind of Everywoman who had been done wrong by venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. Many women bought in. When I posted on this blog and Twitter that I viewed her case as weak, I was vilified.

Pao's personal brand included the MBA from Harvard Business School and the JD from Harvard Law School. Yet, horrors, she got the boot by her alleged big bad employer.

But the jury did not agree with her contentions. They obviously were not cowed by her credentials. The defendant had been acquitted on everything. Before, during and after that litigation the work world wasn't kind to Pao. That should have sent a message to other women who allegedly have spun the kinds of narratives Holmes is accused of doing.

However, given the setbacks on a COVID-19 vaccine and the warning of a brutal second round of the virus, the trial could be pushed out from the March date. Delay, as those in the legal loop know, is on the defendant's side.

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

The Old Grow Organically or Acquire Corporate Issue - In Law Firms, That's Called the "Lateral Strategy" (and Paul, Weiss Proved to Be Skillful Selector)

"Some firms have been able to act strategically amid a pandemic and economic downturn, increasing the number and, in some cases the quality, of their lateral partners." - Patrick Smith, Law.com, October 12, 2020.

There had been a time when Corporate America had been the top dog in the global economy.

Therefore, it could play a conservative hand.

That usually consisted of long-drawn-out strategy sessions about if they should diversify and/or grow through developing the business organically or acquiring a proven entity in that niche.

Whatever move they made, they would justify it to myriad constituencies, including through those traditional begin-with-a-joke 18-minute speeches. Yes, all quite smug.

Then international competition became standard, technology took over and there was the the need to establish presence in a market fast. The pivot has been toward acquisition. As a career coach, I assist those classified as "redundant" in their transitions Download ReimaginingYourCareerWithJaneGenova.

In the law-firm sector, the game has also configured along the same strategy. It's called the "lateral market." And,  it's become central to growth, branding and entrance to a niche or dominating it. Therefore, law firms which have the financial resources and excel in the art of the deal will work the lateral strategy even in crisis times.

Interestingly, in the process, those firms can establish a differentiated identity in the legal sector. For years, legal consultants have hammered law firms that differentiation was mandatory. Too many elite firms were look-alikes.

Among the key players in the lateral space has been Paul, Weiss. Actually, that seems to have evoled into a brand attribute.

The laterals its chairperson Brad Karp had acquired from distressed Boies Schiller have been all over the media.

As is well-known, those partner exits from Boies Schiller were in themselves major stories. Many remember when Boies Schiller founder David Boies had been deified in the business media as both a crafty litigator and a risk-taking entrepreneur. The latter is rare in the legal profession. Here is that iconic May 12, 2015 coverage by Paul Barrett in Bloomberg. And, of course, that was then.

The more recent major story with legs is the partners taking the exits.

The most prominent "expats" from Boies Schiller to Paul, Weiss were Karen Dunn and Bill Isaacson. Their mission is to make Paul, Weiss the go-to firm in Northern California - that is, Silicon Valley.

Other law firms have experimented there and failed. That makes the move closely watched. Yes, law firm as pioneer. Good story, isn't it. Later, Meredith Dearborn and Jessica Phillips also were poached from Boies Schiller and added to the Silicon Valley venture. Before that, Karp had primarily focused on the New York and Washington D.C. territories.

Lesser known has been a lateral addition to the bankruptcy practice. In Paul, Weiss' New York office parachuted Andrew Parlen. Most recently he had been with Latham & Watkins. But most of his career had been at O'Melveny. Among his clients have been Herion and Verso.

What was cool about this development had been this: Parlen leveraged the media attention associated with joining Paul, Weiss to showcase his perception of the state of the economy. Essentially he anticipates no falloff in the kind of work he does. That says it all. 

In terms of branding, Paul, Weiss hit two homeruns with that lateral. One was the deal-making itself. The second was that the new partner Parlen immediately positioned and packaged himself as a thought leader.

Overall, though, the business of lateral recruiting is down. In Law.com, on October 8th, Dylan Jackson reported that searches have plummeted by about a third. Energy, finance, litigation and M&A are the practices most responsible for that. However, most recently, M&A has been picking up. Time will tell if that triggers a hunt for laterals in the niche.

Reflection: With courts closed or operating on a limited basis, it's business strategy in the legal sector which has been the platform for attention. Had there not been COVID-19, those in the legal sector, the media and laypeople fascinated with how lawyers argue points of law probably would have been engrossed in the trial for "U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes." 

Place your paid sponsored content on this blog. Here are 6 tips for search engine optimization (SEO) in 2020. Contact janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

The Bonus Wars - Lousy Precedent (and 2 other problems)

"It appears that firms are no longer falling in line to match fall bonuses. As some market leaders expressly rejected the idea, it raises questions about the efficacy of using cash bonuses for retention, and whether it’s wise for all firms to follow the leader." - Dylan Jackson, Law.com, October 7, 2020.

Those COVID Appreciation Bonuses might have ben another one of those bad decisions smart leaders make all too often. Think the New Coke. 

Those law firms which participated in awarding the fall bonuses include:

Milbank Debvoise

Shearman & Sterling

Simpson Thacher

Sullivan & Crowell.

Increasingly, that decision is being assessed as not completely thought out.

Obviously, it sent a negative signal to the marketplace that fees could go up or not be negotiated. After all, funds had to be plowed into those bonuses for associates already making a bundle.

But, what hasn't been considered and should have by a profession operating on precedent is this: Granting those off-season bonuses established the expectation among the workforce that there could be more of that in the future.

Consider this scenario: The law firm has a big win which involved many teams of its lawyers. Come on, those lawyers will be anticipating another round of special bonuses.

And, as we know in career coaching, the message that was sent is that the law firms in the loop could be perceived at throwing money at their challenges. Fearing talent will walk out the door? Pay them to stay. However, what is clear from partners exiting to open their own boutiques is that such a business model is not effective. 

The bonus wars are over. Law firms which threw in their hats might be feeling quite foolish right now. That was a hard way to learn needed business and public relations lessons. What would be cool is for those firms awarding bonuses to issue a collective apologia about what a bad idea that had been. That will contain a promise to clients and prospects that it won't happen again, at least as long as they are the chairpersons.

The work world has become unforgiving. You may be among those who have to reimagine your career. Affordable coaching.  Make an appointment for complimentary consultation (janegenova374@gmail.com)