From GC to AG to PC
August 27, 2007 | Filed Under In the News
This morning’s news of the expected resignation of Alberto Gonzales takes him in a few years from President Bush’s general counsel, to attorney general, to private citizen.
Much of the focus on Mr. Gonzales has been over the handling (or mis-handling) of the removal of eight US attorneys. Or over a burgeoning domestic surveillance program when he was White House Counsel.
But I think it goes deeper.
One thing that makes a good general counsel is an ability to balance loyalty with independence. Other C-level executives can do this, but none of them comes at it from the same ethical and professional standpoint.
There is no doubt that Mr. Gonzales owed most of his political good fortune to Mr. Bush. While that doesn’t mean he couldn’t give the President his best impartial advice, one has to search hard to find supporting evidence. Or perhaps Mr. Gonzales has no recollection of it.
Contrast this with the performance in 2004 of then acting AG James Comey, who had to support the Constitution when John Ashcroft was sedated in the hospital and endure pressure from Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Mr. Gonzales (plus who knows who else) to expand domestic surveillance.
Imagine what that was like and consider what you would be thinking the next time you started your car.
Mr. Comey went from AG to GC with Lockheed Martin.
And the next AG put forth by President Bush will hopefully have a record of integrity. If not, confirmation could drag past November 2008.
For Want of a Good Lawyer
August 12, 2007 | Filed Under Litigation, In the News
The Sunday New York Times profiles the litigation against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg by the founders of ConnectU, another social networking site. Mr. Zuckerberg allegedly did some work for ConnectU at prior to starting Facebook. Brothers Tyler and Cameron Winkelvoss claim Facebook as their own, while ConnectU founders (in the other sense of the term).
Unfortunately, the Brothers Winklevoss didn’t exactly put their ducks in a row at the time:
Here are the facts that are not disputed: In 2002, when the Winklevoss brothers were juniors at Harvard, they conceived what was initially called the HarvardConnection, which was to be a social network for the college. In November 2003, they asked Mr. Zuckerberg, who was studying computer science at Harvard, to develop the site’s software and database, promising to compensate him later if the venture prospered.
The brothers contend that Mr. Zuckerberg “procrastinated” about finishing up coding to “gain a competitive advantage.” The judge is not amused:
At a hearing on July 25, he scolded John F. Hornick, ConnectU’s lawyer, over what the judge saw as his inability to provide documentary evidence, saying, “Dorm-room chitchat does not make a contract.” He gave ConnectU two weeks to prepare a better case.
One wonders if the situation was reversed, and ConnectU wildly successful, would the Brothers Winklevoss cut Mr. Zuckerberg into the venture absent an agreement to do so?
I have seen time and time again otherwise bright entrepreneurs feel like they can do their own legal work with forms off the InterWeb. They either pick the wrong form, don’t respect it in any event, and then wonder why things don’t work out when they start to get some traction.
The worst part is when they give equity with no rhyme or reason, handing out shares like potato chips at a frat house kegger.
Lawyers who know how to counsel start-ups can be expensive. Wannabe entrepreneurs who skip this step in the process can learn that that the alternative to a few legal bills is way more expensive.
Check out ConnectU, by the way. Looks like the brothers didn’t spend much on a web designer, either.
Crisis (Mis)management
August 8, 2007 | Filed Under Crisis Planning, In the News
Ask anyone who has trained for a crisis: it’s something you hope you never need.
So when Murray Energy first heard that its Utah coal mine had suffered a catastrophic collapse on Monday, trapping 6 miners 1500 feet under the ground, they presumably put their plan in action.
We saw the first phase, when Murray Energy founder and chairman Robert Murray followed Crisis 101 and rushed to the scene, dutifully taking center stage as the point man for the company.
And then he promptly dropped the playbook, started arguing with scientists as to the cause, and with reporters as to the type of mining methods used (see below):
(Here’s the link if you don’t see the video player).
The part about referring to certain people as “lackeys for the United Mine Workers” was particularly bizarre; he elaborated further yesterday about potential causes:
“This was caused by an earthquake, not something that Murray Energy … did or our employees did or our management did,” an irate Robert E. Murray, chairman of mine owner Murray Energy Corp. of Cleveland, said at a televised news conference. “It was a natural disaster. An earthquake. And I’m going to prove it to you.”
What?
I was always taught three main things to say in a crisis; and they go something like this:
1. We are saddened by these tragic events and our thoughts and prayers go out to the workers involved and their families.
2. We are very concerned about the safety of our fellow employees and rescue personnel and we are doing everything possible to bring everyone out safely.
3. We are cooperating fully with regulatory authorities, and will not comment on potential causes until we see the results of a complete investigation.
1, 2, 3. Rinse, lather, repeat.
I hope these workers manage to survive and admire the courage of rescue personnel and the fortitude required to be a family member of a coal miner.
My empathy goes out to those who are charged with advising Mr. Murray. What do you say to the founder of a company after a news conference like that when he asks: “Well, how do you think that went?”
Mergers and Dispositions
August 1, 2007 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Technology, In the News
It’s been awhile since we’ve looked at law firm mergers.
One reason to revisit this topic is the publication of BlawgWorld 2007. Yours truly has an entry on the “Urge to Merge” by certain law firms; the entire issue can be downloaded here (Three clicks to find my contribution, starting with the “Blawgs” tab on top). It’s a rather large file, but quite innovative in design and packed with a lot of interesting articles, tech answers and solution providers. (See if you can find this weblog on the cover; and even this writer on page two, the “Preface,” after refreshments were served at the pre-launch party eons ago…)
Bringing this subject up to date, the most recent example may be the report that K&L Gates and Hughes & Luce are planning to hook up:
In a company press release, Edward Coultas, Hughes & Luce’s managing partner, said, “We are eager to explore this strategic opportunity for our clients and our respective firms. A true global platform created by the proposed merger would heighten the combined firm’s ability to serve clients in Texas, throughout the United States and around the world.”
There it is again, that word platform. Sound familiar?
The New York Times also had a recent report (Select content) about goings on with US law firms in Europe, focusing on Americans in Paris:
Perhaps the most aggressive hunter has been Latham & Watkins, of San Francisco, which devised an international expansion strategy with McKinsey in the late 1990s, then began talks in 2002 with Ashurst of Britain about a merger, which failed. Hardly had the dust settled on those talks when Latham hired away Ashurst’s entire private equity team in Paris, then it proceeded the following year to raid Ashurst’s Munich office. Last year, Latham snatched up Gaby Eickstädt of Ashurst, one of Germany’s leading antitrust experts. Earlier, the firm pulled off perhaps its biggest coup, hiring 95 lawyers from the Paris office of Stibbe, a law firm based in Amsterdam.
The cherry-pick sometimes appears to be a quicker and more direct way to grow than merging outright.
Recently, mid-sized firms in Chicago and Washington are deciding whether to go-a-courting or go-it-alone.
In an era of the primacy of profits-per-partner and the euphemistically termed “de-equitizing,” law firm mergers seem a bit old-fashioned. We’ll await an intrepid law or business professor to report on what percentage of such mergers add value. That’s a reality check that may be instructive to all involved.
Lawyer Ads Move Up-Market?
June 19, 2007 | Filed Under Selling the GC, In the News
Where do the law book publishers go when people are moving online? Would you believe television?
The New York Times details a new initiative by LexisNexis unit Martindale-Hubbell to create ads for law firms that could go beyond the Robert Vaughn-says-call-plaintiffs-lawyer-X variety.
According to the Times, Martindale-Hubbell is working with ad agency Spot Runner to develop ads covering areas “…like family law, drunken driving, personal injury and general practice; commercials for criminal and immigration law are also being developed.”
And we are not talking about el-cheapo radio spots, either:
While the commercials in Spot Runner’s general catalog can be purchased and personalized for as little as $499, packaged advertising campaigns for Martindale-Hubbell’s firms will start from $10,000 to $50,000, including air time. Kurt Weinsheimer, vice president for partner development at Spot Runner, said that many small firms had been discouraged from television advertising because professional-looking commercials are prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Under the new arrangement, law firms can work with their Martindale-Hubbell account representatives to use a Spot Runner ad and buy time in the more-affordable local, rather than the national, television markets. In those local markets, the commercials will run on broadcast and cable networks like CBS, CNN, ESPN and Fox News.
For some time, Martindale-Hubbell has attempted to move beyond an image of a large set of thick tan books that sit mouldering in the library. They are clearly asking for a stretch from account reps previously tasked with signing up firms for directory entries. Perhaps also a tacit admission that upstart Avvo is having an effect on Lexis-Nexis strategy?
What I find most revealing is that Martindale-Hubbell is targeting television for lawyer ads. Many other sophisticated advertisers are moving more spending online, given the superior targeting and tracking it can offer.
I would certainly enjoy watching these ads; the word is that they will start to appear here in Michigan first. But what will more normal viewers do when interrupted by a lawyer ad when they have Tivo controllers in their hands?
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
