« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »
May 31, 2009
Overheard in Santa Monica: Club Ned.
"Honey, just wear a black turtleneck--even Ned Beatty looks good in a black turtleneck."
Club Ned: Beatty considering Georgia fishing float-trip with buddies. Seriously, Louisville-born Beatty, who turns 72 this year, is one of America's great talents. Actor's actor.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
May 30, 2009
W-L Balance: Real lawyers spend time with their wives, girlfriends, and dogs.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
Saturday's Charon
London's Bits and Bites of America. It's Saturday in Anytown, America, in almost-June. Shopping. First, the Food Lion. Then Costco. Maybe Wal-Mart. Quick guilty stop at the Porn Warehouse. Lunch at the The Red Lobster. The look of real wood, and pleated vinyl. All day long, huge "mountain" people waddling and lunging through aisles. They talk. They say exactly the same things all the time--and don't even know it. And, finally, Barbecue! See "Barbecue man returns… argghhhhh…" at CQC.
Posted by JD Hull at 10:46 PM | Comments (0)
May 29, 2009
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
Breaking news: GeekLawyer sued, finally.
The Romans at Teutoburg Forest, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Oscar Wilde trial, the death of Bambi's mother. And now this. We bump our in-progress pieces on SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor, "the end of the recession", the GM bankruptcy, and a tip we got about the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa to note that GeekLawyer--soft-spoken and mild Brit barrister, writer and IP specialist WAC? befriended in 2005, and recently drank Diet Cokes with in Mayfair--has been finally sued. See Geeklawyer sued--finally!
Details are sketchy at this point.
But who would want to sue this guy? No matter what he's done (within reason), he is "one of us". Let's circle the wagons for our cousin in Albion. He's done scads to help us get over our fears of really having a First Amendment culture here in the States. At a minimum, he's unwittingly lowered--and quite drastically--FCC standards.
Here are excerpts from the milder parts of yesterday's GL post, edited by WAC? for Yanks of PC-persuasion and/or moral majority sensibilities:
GeekLawyer has taunted many a [phallic, arguably anti-gay and un-PC imagery expletive deleted] who has huffed and puffed but climbed down: billionaire [F-word imagery implying cretin-esque qualities deleted] Stelios for example.
Mercifully this litigation, for a piffling £300,000, was unrelated to GeekLawyer's profession and his capacity to entertain the judiciary while [violent and horribly un-PC client service imagery deleted] punters and opponents alike remains unimpeded.
Outrage in London--how will it end?
Above: Well-loved Brit pundit GeekLawyer at Epsom Downs racetrack just days before vicious and groundless lawsuit for doing something.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:35 PM | Comments (3)
May 28, 2009
Diversions
Ah, but it is hard to find this track of the divine in the midst of this life we lead...
Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf (1927)
Posted by JD Hull at 03:47 PM | Comments (0)
May 27, 2009
But, Olympia, is there an even better qualified "Not-Woman"?
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate Republican, congratulated Obama for "nominating a well qualified woman."
WSJ: "Senate GOP Reaction Guarded To Sotomayor High Court Pick". We like Olympia Snowe a lot--and remember her as a 31-year-old freshman Representative in the Longworth Building: smart, earnest and attractive, and so young-looking she often was mistaken for staff. She's come far. WAC? likes her ideas. We'd like her ideas if she were a Man. Or a Gazelle. Or a Chipmunk. But, assuming she is trying to be supportive, and not just hedging her bets for the press, surely she can do better than the above. Update: More Sotomayor at Legal Blog Watch. She's everywhere.
Olympia Jean Bouchles Snowe, circa 1985
Posted by JD Hull at 12:50 AM | Comments (0)
The Greatest American Lawyer: Out With His Posse.
A glimpse into Traverse City's small but colorful underground. See "I Could Be an Idiot, but You Would Never Know It Because I Look Good In a Suit" at GAL.
South Union Street, Traverse City, Michigan
Posted by JD Hull at 12:00 AM | Comments (3)
May 26, 2009
Graduating in the time of down-markets.
Canada as light years ahead. See "Graduating Into A Recession" at Jordan Furlong's Law21. And see the always-superior and client-centric CBA Practice Link of the Canadian Bar Association.
Jordan Furlong
Posted by JD Hull at 11:23 PM | Comments (0)
Clients and customers.
All we know so far on keeping them is here. No, we're not experts. But we think about clients, and our clients' customers, 24/7. If you are in business, that's all there is to think about.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:00 PM | Comments (0)
La Vie Parisienne: Spring 2009 in the U.S.
In the middle of a recession, Americans live in a nation where work slowly goes out of style, European statism is at least a short-term reality, and many of our citizens are now ample enough to have their own Zip Codes.
What's the Deal? Where's the Moxie? Whither goest our self-respect?
Posted by JD Hull at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)
Holden Oliver (2007-2009): Done, out, onward.
As planned, and dreaded, "old" law student Holden Oliver, a WAC? co-blogger, is leaving us. He graduates, takes a bar exam, and takes his "outfit" (his term) to Europe for a year. And then? Well, he's not sure. But the guy sure has options: journalism, law, maybe both. Some of us see him in politics. (He doesn't.) In addition to being a fine (and fast) writer, Holden's unusually well-read, and leading a down-East life that's "on purpose and examined".
The only serious Libertarian I've ever liked, he's taught me, and Tom Welshonce, the real brains behind What About Clients?, much. We're sorry, sir, that we killed you off the last couple of years on April 1. But we were insanely jealous of your easy charm with everyone, and every thing. You could be arrogant and droll and funny all at once; yet you still enriched our lives beyond our capacity to ever repay you.
Posted by JD Hull at 02:43 AM | Comments (1)
May 23, 2009
Slackoisie-Fest: Fighting Loser-ism in the Workplace.
Listen, you creeps, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the dogs, the filth and the crap. Here is a man who stood up.
~ Travis Bickle, Taxi Driver (1976)
Young wankers against work. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice rails, too often alone, against the dreaded 'Wazee: the Cliff Notes kids, scourges of the workplace, and Maynard G. Krebses with a straight-faced demented Ritalin-laced rap on the right to be barely adequate at work. This is Gen-Y. You were born after 1978. You demand--with no real bargaining power--that employers buy into "work-life balance". You want a family-life "lifestyle".
The truth: you're lazier and more incompetent than WAC?'s old Southern Ohio whiskey-swilling doped-up hound dog "Craps". But now you call yourself Super-Daddy. Or Concerned Humanist. Or Non-Selfish Sensitive New Age Person. Some trendy if wimpy U.S. employers are increasingly buying into this.
But since 1997 at Hull McGuire--the firm for which I co-write this blog, and clerked for last summer--such workers have been referred to openly as the Slackoisie, the 'Slack and (on bad days) "Looters". The firm was alone in its dismay for many years. Then other firms in the U.S. experienced the same problem. No one, it seemed, wanted to talk about it--even as higher-end clients worried increasingly about getting real value from their planners and problem solvers.
But, in Scott Greenfield, last year we finally found a talented and spirited ally. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. He is hero to the quiet legions of builders, planners, inventors and yeoman lawyers who know what problem-solving takes, and what sacrifices are demanded to get things done for clients and customers.
Ben Franklin, Tom Edison and Clarence Darrow root for Greenfield in Doers' Heaven. The Immortals do watch us. They hope that America's shameful, and ill-timed, work-life balance charade will soon die the vampire's death it deserves. Enough is enough, they think; this is not what we Yanks are all about. Get "balance" on your own time, in your own way, or through a less demanding career.
Young lawyers need to learn the tough and hard-learned art of practicing law. Older lawyers need to work hard at teaching them, and serving valued clients.
We serve. Clients and customers are "always"--and they come first. See Scott's "First, You Have To Get The Job". About 30 comments so far.
Greenfield (dated photo), Last of the Anti-Wankers.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 08:48 PM | Comments (5)
May 22, 2009
The client's stock price this week?
The client, it seems, actually wants you to know him, her or it. Take time out to learn the stock price, industry, day-to-day culture, players and overall goals of your client. Visit their offices and plants. Do it free of charge.
Associates in particular need to develop the habit of finding out about and keeping up with clients and their trials and tribulations in and out of the areas they are working in. Learn about your client--and keep learning about it. Devise a system to keep abreast.
From "Rule 7: Know the Client", in our annoying-but-correct 12 Rules of Client Service.
Special note to get-a-life conventioneers world-wide: Practicing law never was--and never will be--a work-life balance thing. It's a client thing. Start there. You signed up to serve. Get used to it.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
May 21, 2009
The world's best banks?
You're kidding, right? Tough one. "Trying to work out which banks are the world’s best is a bit like awarding the prize for prettiest war-torn village." Let's see, Goldman Sachs? No, JPMorgan Chase. Maybe Credit Suisse, Deutsche, BNP, Barclays, Santander? The Economist discusses its short list.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2009
Towards a reinvented Martindale-Hubbell?
Martindale-Hubbell also represents many other solutions that help law firms establish...a full range of marketing and client development services. One of our most recent, and proudest, releases is Martindale-Hubbell Connected, our premier legal professional network. Thousands of corporate counsel and attorneys have joined this network since it's launch earlier this year.
--Dave Danielson, Martindale-Hubbell/VP LexisNexis Client Development
A New Martindale-Hubbell? We'll certainly listen to that idea. Five days ago we ran a recycled yet timely post entitled Redux: Martindale-Hubbell: Should we all "just say no"?. In response, Dave Danielson, Martindale-Hubbell/Vice-President, LexisNexis Client Development, commented back. Dave's response is both honest and instructive. For some readers, it will even break a bit of news. We print it in its entirety below:
Mr Hull raises a fair point, one that we definitely hear loud and clear at Martindale-Hubbell. But, the picture in this original post ironically helps me make a very important point - that Martindale-Hubbell is viewed by many lawyers as "just a listing" or "just a book". This could not be farther from the truth. Let me explain...
Martindale-Hubbell subscribers are paying for a "listing", yes, but that listing puts them in Martindale.com as well as Lawyers.com and also syndicates their profile/contact information to many alliance partners like Google, Yahoo, CitySearch, MSN, superpages, and many others. If you see a law firm listed in Google "Local" there is a fair chance that our syndication was involved. We believe that this syndication value online is worth a lot in reduced cost and complexity for the typical law firm.
Also, between Lawyers.com and Martindale.com we have over 3 Million unique visitors each month with even more lawyer searches. Surveys have consistently put Lawyers.com and Martindale.com as a trusted source for ratings, content, and discussion - more of a decision support solution than a simple directory.
But, Martindale-Hubbell also represents many other solutions that help law firms establish their own Web Site/SEO presence on the internet, implement a pay per click program, manage leads for a complete ROI; develop market intelligence, relationship intelligence and business intelligence - a full range of marketing and client development services.
One of our most recent, and proudest, releases is Martindale-Hubbell Connected, our premier legal professional network. Thousands of corporate counsel and attorneys have joined this network since it's launch earlier this year. Members tell us that they want an opportunity to speak privately with other legal professionals, establish new connections to discuss legal issues, and even to create their own group and implement their own online seminar/discussion (we extend connections to LinkedIn as well)
So, while we appreciate and acknowledge the historic importance of our peer review ratings, we have changed quite a bit from the days of books but we still have a long way to go. We are establishing packages to reduce overall prices and to help law firms establish the best mix of solutions to fit their marketing needs. We even have a program that allows individual attorneys to create a low cost subscription when their law firm has chosen not to subscribe. We have an abbreviated listing for all attorneys we are aware of but we would prefer to establish the right memberships so that the full capabilities of the law firm can be presented for our large community of visitors to consider/review and so that all leads/opportunities can be automatically tracked.
But again, we must continue to improve. We are trying to make a concerted effort to listen to our proponents and our detractors so we can continue to grow our historic place in the market as the primary source for legal decisions and communication among consumers, attorneys, and corporate counsel.
I and my colleagues would appreciate hearing from all on ways that we can improve.
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to post.
Regards,
Dave Danielson
Martindale-Hubbell/VP LexisNexis Client Development
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (3)
May 19, 2009
Discovery: The Miracle of Rule 56(f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
(f) When Affidavits Are Unavailable.
If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) deny the motion;
(2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or
(3) issue any other just order.
Trial lawyers know that Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or summary judgment, gives a litigant an opportunity to win on its claims or dispose of the opponent's claims relatively quickly and without trial. Accompanied by sworn affidavits and often discovery responses, a Rule 56 motion tries to show that there is no real dispute about key facts and that the movant is entitled to judgment under the law. If granted, the movant wins.
Disruptive: The "early-in-case" Rule 56 motion.
But what if a summary judgment motion is brought against your client--suddenly and out of the blue--and the local rules (or local folkways and practices) of the district court don't give you much time to develop and prepare an opposition. After all, Rule 56 lets a party who has brought a claim file for summary judgment after 20 days, and defendants can file "at any time". In contentious, high stakes litigation, a quick summary judgment motion right after the commencement of a lawsuit can be extraordinarily disruptive.
It will fluster even the most battle-hardened been-there seen-that GC or in-house counsel.
Subdivision (f) of Rule 56, "When Affidavits are Unavailable", provides a safeguard against premature grants of SJ. Lots of good lawyers seem either to not know about, or to not use, subdivision (f) of Rule 56.
In short, you file your own motion and affidavit--there are weighty sanctions if you misuse the rule, so be careful--stating affidavits by persons with knowledge needed to oppose the motion are "not available", and stating why. The district court can then (1) deny the request and make you oppose the motion, (2) refuse to grant the motion for SJ OR do what you really want it to do: (3) grant a continuance so that you can "obtain" affidavits and, better yet, take depositions or conduct other discovery. It's a delay-oriented rule, but if used correctly, Rule 56(f) can give you the breathing room and time you need to develop the client's case, and avoid the granting of SJ against it.
Note: During the course of today, John Day, Tennessee trial lawyer, and a man who--just like me--thinks it's a real privilege to practice law, has been just a few blocks from both my old D.C. work and residence neighborhoods, with a hotel about two blocks from our current D.C. office. Some months ago, responding to an earlier post very similar to this one, John made this fine comment, which I wish I had written:
Another tactic is promptly serving notices to take appropriate depositions before the Rule 56 response deadline (if you already have enough information to take a good deposition in the case). The opponent almost always objects to the timing of the deposition - and thus you can put the unavailability of a witness and / or counsel in your affidavit while at the same time illustrating your commitment to move the case forward.
A judge may well decline to give more time to gather evidence if no effort has been made to conduct discovery while the case has been pending. This is yet another reason to have a discovery plan in place very early in the litigation (and if you're the plaintiff before suit is filed) and promptly serve written discovery / take depositions / do discovery under Rule 45 in a sequence appropriate for that case.
East Capitol Street: Beloved former WAC? "living area", about four blocks from SCOTUS.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:11 PM | Comments (0)
It's 7:00 PM. Do you know what your summer associates are thinking?
Summer at law firms, Congressional offices, businesses and government agencies mean new interns and clerks--and new blood and fresh air for more senior people who hire them. But the season is also useful for evaluating talent, developing talent and teaching great habits. See this 2007 post. Forget for a moment whether your summer people are "nice" or attractive people or not. That alone is not important, Jack.
Think about your clients. Is their work accurate? And how did they "get there" (to the answer), in that conclusion on "promissory estoppel against the government", anyway? Are they people who want to "appear" to be lawyers--or passionately want to be lawyers? BS artists? Some Slackoisie slip in there? And are they "smart"? Well, if you don't know, you should learn. It's about your clients.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:02 PM | Comments (2)
May 18, 2009
Trademarks: Drink like a Russian.
UPDATED: The right to know what befuddles you. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the “materiality” prong of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3), a new subsection added to trademark statutory law by the NAFTA Implementation Act of 1993, which prohibits “geographically deceptively misdescriptive” trademarks (and service marks). In re: Spirits International, N.V., 2008-1369 (April 29, 2009) involved an application for Moskovskaya, which translates from Russian to English as “of or from Moscow,” as a mark for a Russian vodka that is not from Moscow. Because the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board didn’t apply the proper test--whether those capable of translating the term represented a “substantial portion of the intended audience”--the case was sent back to see if that proper subset of consumers would mistakenly assume the vodka was from Moscow and, for that reason, choose to purchase it.
Note: Seldom-confused Rob Bodine is a DC-based IP lawyer, world traveler, and philosopher. Rob recently became of counsel to Hull McGuire. He will be a frequent contributor to WAC? on issues of trade and service marks, IP licensing and, apparently, Vodka globally.
Posted by Rob Bodine at 11:59 PM | Comments (4)
May 15, 2009
Boron oxide is damn sexy.
Always describe your sex toys in great detail--no matter how embarrassing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Florida district court finding of a valid patent on a sex toy. Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 2008-1528, -1529 (April 24, 2009). The court deemed the phrase, "appreciable amount," to be far too vague with respect to the amount of an oxide of boron present in the glass toy. In other words, the device was the result of ordinary experimentation on compositional structure one would expect from 'experts' in the area--and therefore obvious and unpatentable.
Henry Miller (1891-1980) toying with a new idea.
Posted by Rob Bodine at 11:59 PM | Comments (1)
International banking does a self-audit.
Banking as the industry that failed. See this week's The Economist and "Rebuilding the Banks". Excerpts:
There is still great uncertainty about the nature and extent of the support that governments will end up offering to their banks. But governments are now deeply embedded in banking systems.
The popular perception of bankers as Porsche-driving sociopaths obscures the fact that many of the industry’s staff are modestly paid and sit in branches, information-technology departments and call-centres. Job losses in the industry have been savage. “Being done” used to refer to hearing about your annual bonus. Now it means getting fired.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)
Redux: Martindale-Hubbell: Should we all "just say no"?
From an August 8, 2009 post. Martindale-Hubbell is still "no joke". We would all miss M-H--from the ratings process to the familiar look of staid old friends the books have in any library--if it disappeared. But has anything changed?
Is a Martindale-Hubbell listing worth it anymore?
We're not unhappy with the M-H ratings process; generally speaking, if done responsibly and without in effect requiring the "purchase" of the rating, a credible if imperfect ratings process for the global legal community makes lots of sense. And M-H accomplished that decades ago.* But, in view of other and newer ways for law firms to have visibility and credibility, the price of listings at M-H is now officially a rip-off. Lots of fine lawyers seem to be complaining about it, at least in private, both in the U.S. and non-U.S. It's not that Martindale hasn't tried. See, for example, at Law.com the piece "Martindale-Hubbell Gets a Makeover" (mentioning Avvo, LawLink and Legal OnRamp, as new alternatives for marketing, networking and lawyer ratings).
Our humble take: as other ways to locate lawyers emerged, M-H never saw the light fast enough, and didn't successfully change or expand its other services to preempt a backlash. It continued to charge big listing fees that everyone complained about for years. More recently (say, the last 3 years), M-H expenses managed to stay in law firm budgets--but exceeded just about everyone's irritation levels. M-H listings now makes no business sense to anyone sane. Only the embarrassingly lame, gimmicky "Super Lawyer" concept could make Martindale look good these days.
Start the revolution?
*Martindale-Hubbell is no joke. It has a fine, time-honored and even classy reputation, and a history of good work and real utility in the profession. Our firm, Hull McGuire, has actively and earnestly participated in the M-H ratings processes for years; we are happy with the ratings our lawyers received. But, in good times or bad times, the current cost to list firm attorneys for any size firm, with or without multiple offices, is prohibitive and should be resisted on principle given other alternatives. It just isn't worth it. We predict that lawyers will bolt in droves in the next 2 years.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:24 AM | Comments (1)
May 13, 2009
Return of Roxana: The Document Review
More "Notes from the Breadline" at Above The Law. Roxana gets a part-time gig:
Clearly, I have joined an effort that is already in progress. Whether the attorneys who work here ever actually leave the room is less clear. Most of the computer stations look lived-in: pillows, blankets, and sweaters adorn the chairs, and personal effects are lined up on the tiny slivers of desk space between reviewers.
Something about the scene reminds me of a casino, and the way gamblers stake out slot machines by arranging coin cups, drinks, and ashtrays around the perimeter of their territory. Most people have containers of lotion next to their keyboards, and everyone has a large tankard of hand sanitizer nearby. Some have bottles of prescription drugs lined up in their space....
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)
May 12, 2009
Are there any more out there like you, sir?
I don't get this tension between doing your job and enjoying your life. Geez!, if you don't enjoy practicing law, find another line of work. Life's too short to spend 2,000 hours a year doing something you don't enjoy.
When people thank me for doing my job, I often reply, "I live to serve." The usual response is a chuckle. But I really mean it--serving others is a lawyer's job. Any lawyer who doesn't understand that needs to find another line of work.
Raymond Ward, Lawyer and Renaissance Man, New Orleans, May 11, 2009
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:27 PM | Comments (8)
May 11, 2009
The Scramble for Value.
Susan Hackett, general counsel of the ACC, says the new approach to value is necessary because law firms had become so expensive that their fees often outstripped the value of the problem they were brought in to resolve.
The scramble for value, the debate on new models, the future of law firms--the discussion needs a touchstone. There are lots of ways to provide value to higher-end clients: hourly fees, not hourly fees, and hybrids, new firm business models, and all manner of "paradigm-shifts". But WAC? still maintains that they begin and end with customer (lawyers call them "client") relationships.
And Trust. Trust is the place of definitions for all service providers--not just for lawyers.
Anyway, here's one (via Canada's often-prescient Jordan Furlong at Law21) worth reading we missed two weeks ago from Penn's Wharton School: "Legal Strategy 101: It's Time for Law Firms to Re-think Their Business Model". A thoughtful and competent article, if a bit "lawyer-centric". I think we should just get used to it. Lawyers are not special. We are servants, if often well-paid ones.
Billing models, partnership structures, staffing alternatives, the care and feeding of associates, firm culture, collegiality--they mean nothing unless designed and maintained for clients' day-to-day needs. We are not royalty. We serve. We anticipate, prevent and solve client problems. Nothing more. Can we focus more on the real deal: the Art of the Client. What else is there?
Posted by JD Hull at 12:59 AM | Comments (0)
Simple Priorities: Clients First, Lawyers Second.
We work hard, play hard, enjoy life to its fullest. We just don't do so at the expense of the people who put their trust in us. The Slackoisie can't comprehend this as being possible; pleasure is on their terms or can't possibly exist.
--SHG, May 11, 2009
Work-Life. Life-Work. Work as Optional. Lawyer Training as Watered-Down. Work as a Privilege. Work as Important. Clients as The Touchstone? Or is it: Law Firms and their Employees as the Main Event? Stylize Mediocrity? Well, why not? Just make mailing-it-in part of the new U.S. lawyer culture in the middle of a recession. Lawyers might really like it.
That's the New Program, isn't it?
Well, WAC? is very confused. Before we (1) lose our bearings, (2) get a life, or (3) blow a jurisdictional deadline today because it was inconvenient for us to meet it, we will certainly reread Scott Greenfield's radical pro-client (weird, eh?) opus at Simple Justice in "The Slackoisie Fight Back".
Last week in Chicago, Greenfield attended the heavily GC-attended SuperConference by InsideCounsel magazine--spearheaded by Summit Media's hard-working and artful Sheila Brennan. There, at the staid Chicago Fairmont, Greenfield apparently just lost it, and blew, as it were, a tube. He was, and still is, messing up the "Work-Life Balance Movement" for a lot of people. And in particular he is putting the hurt on those who, ironically, are most passionate about Work when they argue for the right not to do it. Can Greenfield be stopped? At least muzzled? Some people. Get the net.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:00 AM | Comments (1)
May 04, 2009
Global bribery: Getting a consensus there, too.
Last month, during Obama's trip to Europe, Ben Heineman, Jr., former general counsel at General Electric for many years, and now a fellow at the Kennedy School, wrote "G20 Fails to Take on Global Bribery" at a Harvard Business Review blog. Excerpt:
Unfortunately, the summit failed even to mention the pernicious protectionism created by developed nations' failure to enforce the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Public Officials, ratified in 1999. This Convention, building on the the United States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, required the 34 signatory nations (now 37) to pass laws which made bribery by their multinational corporations in foreign nations (especially the developing world) illegal.
Posted by JD Hull at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)
May 01, 2009
Spring Break: Justice Souter exits in June.
A judge's judge heads back to New Hampshire. So says the NYT and 850 other sources. WAC?'s three best bets for replacement: Yale's Harold Koh, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and 7th Circuit Judge Diane Wood--all youngsters under 55, and each for very different Barack Obama reasons. But we are wrong a lot.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)