Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wonderful article on social networking and legal ethics--from a soon-to-be-graduate of Boyd Law.
You can read Derrick Harris's article here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
In the "good news" category....
Jeff & I heard that our Law School Survival Manual will be available on Kindle soon (here).
It's all about the incentives.
See this morning's New York Times story in the Dealbook section (here). The easy part is realizing that incentives will almost always dictate behavior. The hard part is figuring out how to put the right incentives in place. That's why I liked Steven Davidoff's story so much.
Glenn Reynolds is absolutely right about lowering the drinking age.
See his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (here).
Of all the places to display one of the retired space shuttles . . . .
Houston would seem to be the no-brainer, obvious choice, right? After all, the Johnson Space Center is where all of the action in the space program began.
But no: LA is getting one. New York City is getting one. DC is getting one. The Kennedy Space Center down in Florida is getting one. But not Houston (here).
It makes sense for the Kennedy Space Center to get one. And DC has the Smithsonian, so that decision makes sense. But LA and NYC? Not so much.
Seems like politics at its worst to me.
But no: LA is getting one. New York City is getting one. DC is getting one. The Kennedy Space Center down in Florida is getting one. But not Houston (here).
It makes sense for the Kennedy Space Center to get one. And DC has the Smithsonian, so that decision makes sense. But LA and NYC? Not so much.
Seems like politics at its worst to me.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Seriously???
I fear for our profession when we allow behavior like this (here) to occur and we don't call "shenanigans" when we see it.
To me, it's simple. We shouldn't let our egos get in the way of behaving like professionals. Sure, lawyers and financial advisors work hard. But so do people who get paid only a fraction of what lawyers and financial advisors make, and we don't read too many articles about them puffing up their chests over pizza.
We can behave better than this Wall Street Journal article indicates, and we should.
To me, it's simple. We shouldn't let our egos get in the way of behaving like professionals. Sure, lawyers and financial advisors work hard. But so do people who get paid only a fraction of what lawyers and financial advisors make, and we don't read too many articles about them puffing up their chests over pizza.
We can behave better than this Wall Street Journal article indicates, and we should.
Friday, April 08, 2011
An open letter to Nevada's governor and legislature and to the Board of Regents.
I was hoping to be able to speak at today's special meeting of the Board of Regents, during the public comment session, but I had to leave to teach my class later this morning. Here's what I would have said:
You have a very difficult task in front of you, with Nevada's budget situation getting worse every day, and I don't envy you. I did want to give you a feel for how some of the research done at the Boyd School of Law contributes directly to Nevadans and to the country as a whole.
First, some bragging about our students. I'm one of the faculty advisors to the Gaming Law Journal and the Nevada Law Journal (lexis.com). Those two magazines publish both faculty research (not just our faculty's research, but the research done by scholars elsewhere as well) and student research. The GLJ is still rather young, but the NLJ's research has been cited by courts here in Nevada, including the Nevada Supreme Court, and by other courts. One of the country's most famous and well-regarded judges, the Hon. Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has cited the NLJ more than once. By publishing useful and high quality research, our students are providing courts with the means to make good decisions.
Second, the research that I'm doing in terms of bankruptcy ethics (the behavior of bankruptcy lawyers) is part of my overall research agenda, which is geared to supporting the behavior of good lawyers and to getting bad lawyers out of the legal system. It's not every day that I see, on the front page of the Review-Journal, an article on the reasonableness of attorney fees in bankruptcy cases (here). Part of my own research involves developing ways to help bankruptcy courts determine whether attorneys fees are reasonable. Reasonableness is a balancing act. The fees must compensate good lawyers and other professionals for their work in helping a debtor reorganize, but they can't carry a lot of redundancies and inefficiency. Dollars saved by reviewing fees for reasonableness can inure to the benefit of unsecured creditors, who get paid after the professionals are compensated for their work. (Distribution of payments in bankruptcy is more complicated than this description, but this one will suffice here.) Based on my work in this area, I've been asked twice to assist a bankruptcy court in Fort Worth in reviewing fees of two large chapter 11 cases, and I'm currently assisting the bankruptcy court here in Nevada in a similar capacity. The Boyd students and graduates who help me in this work are learning about how large chapter 11 cases work, and about how lawyers and other professionals fit into that process. It's good hands-on learning that will serve them well in their careers.
My research in bankruptcy ethics has also enabled me to help out the Office of the U.S. Trustee (which is part of the Department of Justice) in ferreting out lawyers who may be violating the ethics rules about the unauthorized practice of law. My ability to be useful in such matters is directly tied to my research. In my view, teaching, research, and service are inextricably linked.
My research about legal education has also informed my teaching. I've been hearing for some time that law students are trained to write memoranda--not to advise clients. (Our clinic students, of course, get the training that comes with dealing with live clients.) That's one of the reasons that my upper-level Professional Responsibility students are doing presentations in class. It's also why those presentations require teamwork. Teaching students legal ethics in a way that forces them to construe statutes (the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and figure out how to convey information to people who don't already know it is part of their legal training. Again, it's a mix of teaching and research that lets me give students the opportunity to practice some of the skills that they'll need after graduation.
While I was waiting in line to speak this morning, I heard numerous examples of what the budget cuts will do to the educational system in Nevada. I couldn't help thinking about what a success story Boyd is. We're a young law school, and yet we're able to turn law students into skilled and ethical lawyers. We're doing a very good job on what amounts to a shoestring budget: we're understaffed, our students' tuition dollars are stretched to the breaking point, and we still do everything that a good law school must do in order to be relevant to legal education and to the public.
Several of us have had many opportunities to go elsewhere. I'm choosing to stay because I believe in the strength of our school, even in the face of this budget crisis, and because I value what my colleagues are doing to keep our school's trajectory moving in the right direction.
As you consider how to deal with the budget crisis, I would urge you to focus not just on how (and how much) we at UNLV teach but also on how our research benefits the state and the country (and, for some of my colleagues, the international community). Investing in education here in Nevada is crucial if our state is to survive. We can and should invest wisely--with all that "investing wisely" means-- but we have to invest.
You have a very difficult task in front of you, with Nevada's budget situation getting worse every day, and I don't envy you. I did want to give you a feel for how some of the research done at the Boyd School of Law contributes directly to Nevadans and to the country as a whole.
First, some bragging about our students. I'm one of the faculty advisors to the Gaming Law Journal and the Nevada Law Journal (lexis.com). Those two magazines publish both faculty research (not just our faculty's research, but the research done by scholars elsewhere as well) and student research. The GLJ is still rather young, but the NLJ's research has been cited by courts here in Nevada, including the Nevada Supreme Court, and by other courts. One of the country's most famous and well-regarded judges, the Hon. Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has cited the NLJ more than once. By publishing useful and high quality research, our students are providing courts with the means to make good decisions.
Second, the research that I'm doing in terms of bankruptcy ethics (the behavior of bankruptcy lawyers) is part of my overall research agenda, which is geared to supporting the behavior of good lawyers and to getting bad lawyers out of the legal system. It's not every day that I see, on the front page of the Review-Journal, an article on the reasonableness of attorney fees in bankruptcy cases (here). Part of my own research involves developing ways to help bankruptcy courts determine whether attorneys fees are reasonable. Reasonableness is a balancing act. The fees must compensate good lawyers and other professionals for their work in helping a debtor reorganize, but they can't carry a lot of redundancies and inefficiency. Dollars saved by reviewing fees for reasonableness can inure to the benefit of unsecured creditors, who get paid after the professionals are compensated for their work. (Distribution of payments in bankruptcy is more complicated than this description, but this one will suffice here.) Based on my work in this area, I've been asked twice to assist a bankruptcy court in Fort Worth in reviewing fees of two large chapter 11 cases, and I'm currently assisting the bankruptcy court here in Nevada in a similar capacity. The Boyd students and graduates who help me in this work are learning about how large chapter 11 cases work, and about how lawyers and other professionals fit into that process. It's good hands-on learning that will serve them well in their careers.
My research in bankruptcy ethics has also enabled me to help out the Office of the U.S. Trustee (which is part of the Department of Justice) in ferreting out lawyers who may be violating the ethics rules about the unauthorized practice of law. My ability to be useful in such matters is directly tied to my research. In my view, teaching, research, and service are inextricably linked.
My research about legal education has also informed my teaching. I've been hearing for some time that law students are trained to write memoranda--not to advise clients. (Our clinic students, of course, get the training that comes with dealing with live clients.) That's one of the reasons that my upper-level Professional Responsibility students are doing presentations in class. It's also why those presentations require teamwork. Teaching students legal ethics in a way that forces them to construe statutes (the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and figure out how to convey information to people who don't already know it is part of their legal training. Again, it's a mix of teaching and research that lets me give students the opportunity to practice some of the skills that they'll need after graduation.
While I was waiting in line to speak this morning, I heard numerous examples of what the budget cuts will do to the educational system in Nevada. I couldn't help thinking about what a success story Boyd is. We're a young law school, and yet we're able to turn law students into skilled and ethical lawyers. We're doing a very good job on what amounts to a shoestring budget: we're understaffed, our students' tuition dollars are stretched to the breaking point, and we still do everything that a good law school must do in order to be relevant to legal education and to the public.
Several of us have had many opportunities to go elsewhere. I'm choosing to stay because I believe in the strength of our school, even in the face of this budget crisis, and because I value what my colleagues are doing to keep our school's trajectory moving in the right direction.
As you consider how to deal with the budget crisis, I would urge you to focus not just on how (and how much) we at UNLV teach but also on how our research benefits the state and the country (and, for some of my colleagues, the international community). Investing in education here in Nevada is crucial if our state is to survive. We can and should invest wisely--with all that "investing wisely" means-- but we have to invest.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
'Nuff said.
See Nicholas Kristof's column in today's New York Times (here), explaining why Congress will still get paid if the federal government shuts down.
Let me get this straight: military personnel may not get paid on time (here) unless Congress passes a special bill to exempt them, but members of Congress--who have failed to do their jobs by reaching some sort of budget consensus--will get paid?
For shame, Congress. For shame.
Let me get this straight: military personnel may not get paid on time (here) unless Congress passes a special bill to exempt them, but members of Congress--who have failed to do their jobs by reaching some sort of budget consensus--will get paid?
For shame, Congress. For shame.
ABA Journal's "Peeps(tm) in Law diorama" contest.
See here. Go to the lower right-hand side to scroll through the entries. Hat tip to Lowering the Bar for pointing the contest out (here).
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
What do you get when you cross...
Wish I could be there!
Check out Paul Paton's conference at McGeorge this coming Friday: Ethics 20/20 – Globalization, Technology and Transforming the Practice of Law (here). Also, you might want to check out this paper on alternative business structures (here). Hat tip to Legal Ethics Forum.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Friday, April 01, 2011
Intriguing development in Yucca Mountain.
See here. Can't wait to see the responses. But then again, I'm a Yucca Mountain supporter.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Thanks, SBLI & Georgia State University College of Law!
Having finished this week's visit to Georgia State's law school, courtesy of the Southeastern Bankruptcy Law Institute, I just want to say thanks: thanks to SBLI for funding this program and for choosing me as this year's visiting professor; thanks to the great folks at Georgia State who made me feel so at home; and thanks to the Boyd School of Law for being so nice about my taking a week away during the semester. My own spring semester Professional Responsibility students get my special thanks for being willing to do class via Skype. They did a superb job yesterday.
A tale of two bank experiences in today's New York Times
How do I know when the weekend has truly arrived? For years, the weekend arrived at the moment that I sat down to a leisurely breakfast while reading Joe Nocera's column (and I guess, after today, I'll just have to enjoy reading his op-eds instead). This morning's column discusses the fate of someone who went along with the "everyone's doing it" ethos of liar loans (stated income loans--where the borrower doesn't have to substantiate his income). That person's serving time in prison. See here.
Same page, farther down on the left-hand side: Paul Sullivan's column on banks imposing insurance on borrowers, even when (1) there's no demonstrated need for that particular type of insurance (e.g., flood insurance outside the flood zone) and (2) the property is covered by that insurance already. See here.
If I were a cynical person (stop laughing!), I'd marvel at how many different ways banks manage to game the system with impunity. Let's see: only borrowers, not lenders,* punished for liar loans; one department of a bank demanding insurance while another department assures the borrower that he's already covered by his own insurance; and my current favorite--banks refusing to credit mortgage payments to the loans for all sorts of untenable reasons.
How do we get the system to change? People won't change if there's no incentive to do so. Financial penalties easily become costs of doing business, passed along to consumers as not even a speed bump in the company's business model. We've got to get incentives to the right people, and I'm starting to think that we have to be much more aggressive with the officers and directors who tolerate these bad practices. By "more aggressive," I mean the type of financial penalties that aren't paid by O&D insurance (and penalties that include prison time for the most egregious offenders). We need to figure out an enforceable system of personal responsibility for people who don't fix systemic problems. Start with the line folks who bounce their problems from department to department, infinite-loop style. Move up the chain to managers who can't seem to see those systemic problems despite scads of customer complaints. Keep moving up to department heads all the way to C-level officers and the board. Everyone who routinely tolerates behavior that isn't a fluke needs accountability. Until we come up with a way that links behavior with real consequences, we're going to keep seeing news reports like the ones in today's paper.
* Don't get me wrong: borrowers who lie on their loans shouldn't get a free pass. The rest of us didn't lie on our loans, and we're suffering from the fallout of other people's bad loans.
Same page, farther down on the left-hand side: Paul Sullivan's column on banks imposing insurance on borrowers, even when (1) there's no demonstrated need for that particular type of insurance (e.g., flood insurance outside the flood zone) and (2) the property is covered by that insurance already. See here.
If I were a cynical person (stop laughing!), I'd marvel at how many different ways banks manage to game the system with impunity. Let's see: only borrowers, not lenders,* punished for liar loans; one department of a bank demanding insurance while another department assures the borrower that he's already covered by his own insurance; and my current favorite--banks refusing to credit mortgage payments to the loans for all sorts of untenable reasons.
How do we get the system to change? People won't change if there's no incentive to do so. Financial penalties easily become costs of doing business, passed along to consumers as not even a speed bump in the company's business model. We've got to get incentives to the right people, and I'm starting to think that we have to be much more aggressive with the officers and directors who tolerate these bad practices. By "more aggressive," I mean the type of financial penalties that aren't paid by O&D insurance (and penalties that include prison time for the most egregious offenders). We need to figure out an enforceable system of personal responsibility for people who don't fix systemic problems. Start with the line folks who bounce their problems from department to department, infinite-loop style. Move up the chain to managers who can't seem to see those systemic problems despite scads of customer complaints. Keep moving up to department heads all the way to C-level officers and the board. Everyone who routinely tolerates behavior that isn't a fluke needs accountability. Until we come up with a way that links behavior with real consequences, we're going to keep seeing news reports like the ones in today's paper.
* Don't get me wrong: borrowers who lie on their loans shouldn't get a free pass. The rest of us didn't lie on our loans, and we're suffering from the fallout of other people's bad loans.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wonderful op-ed by Leonard Pitts about gay marriage and human rights.
See here. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Another interesting op-ed from Jon Macey.
Jon Macey's one of my go-to reads whenever he publishes op-eds, and this one (from this week's WSJ) is no exception (see here).
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A salute to Pam Burns.
Because I have Google alerts about a lot of things, including one on the late John O'Quinn, I learned this week that John's exceptional right-hand person, Pam Burns, had passed away. I was very fond of Pam: she was unfailingly good-humored, very kind to me, and loyal to John in the extreme.
Pam, I'll miss you. Rest in peace.
Pam, I'll miss you. Rest in peace.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Greetings from a non-mediocre institution.
It's no secret that Nevada's budget is in horrible shape, and that problem is not likely to improve in the near future. We are living in interesting times, with all that that phrase entails.
But I took umbrage when I read this piece in the National Law Journal (here) about what the budget cuts might do to our school. (Thanks, though, to all of my buddies who passed along the article to me.) I haven't seen the summary to which the article referred ("A summary accompanying Smatresk's letter notes that the plan would require significant tuition increases. 'These additional increases will undermine the law school's successful formula and render it a mediocre institution,' the summary reads.") Whoever wrote that summary was, I'm guessing, trying to communicate that the burden for keeping us from drastic cuts will fall on our students, who will have to pay significantly more in tuition if the state can't figure out a way to help subsidize their education. "Mediocre," though, doesn't describe us now and won't describe us later.
So far this year, we've hired:
Linda Berger, Mercer School of Law. Seven edited volumes on legal writing, rhetoric, and the burgeoning field of metaphor & narrative. 11 articles. Founding editor of J. ALWD.
Ruben Garcia, Cal Western. Labor law expert, former Hastie Fellow, VAP at UC Davis. 16 articles, one book in progress (NYU Press).
Ian Bartrum, Drake University Law School. Ribicoff Fellow in Law at Yale Law School, VAP at Vermont Law School. 12 publications on constitutional interpretation and theory.
Michael Kagan, entry-level hire. Experienced refugee expert in the Middle East and North Africa with stints at Asylum Access, Africa Middle East Refugee Assistance (AMERA), Negotiations Support Unit, Frontiers Association, Musa'adeen Refugee Project, and Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, Amnesty International. 13 articles and book chapters. Teaching experience at American University in Cairo and Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law.
Year-long visitor:
Lisa Bingham, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Visitor at Berkeley, Hastings, Maxwell School of Syracuse, and Aberdeen School of Law. Fulbright fellow in Sweden. Industrial relations, ADR, and Labor Law expert with over 60 articles in peer-reviewed and law journals, over 25 book chapters, and 5 book reviews. Expert in labor negotiations and mediation.
That's on top of the folks we've hired over the last few years, each of them gems. Take a gander at our faculty home page (here).
Ultimately, Nevada has to decide if having an educated workforce is important and, if so, how it might help to encourage and maintain such a workforce. Not even 12 years ago (we're not even old enough to have a bar mitzvah yet), Boyd was a baby law school, formed out of Nevada's desire to keep its budding law students from having to leave the state to get a law degree. There has to be some happy medium between the low/no taxes stance we have now and the too-burdensome taxes that too many states have. In a competitive world, where employers can outsource almost anything to very smart people in other countries, we have to have smart, innovative people on the ground here in Nevada. That takes education, for starters.
Mediocre law school? Nope. We have a good law school, with engaged faculty and staff members and dedicated students. It's a warm community--one of the best I've ever enjoyed. I have confidence that we'll be able to figure out a way to go forward without losing our momentum. Whether the state is able to figure out a way to get its momentum back is another issue entirely.
But I took umbrage when I read this piece in the National Law Journal (here) about what the budget cuts might do to our school. (Thanks, though, to all of my buddies who passed along the article to me.) I haven't seen the summary to which the article referred ("A summary accompanying Smatresk's letter notes that the plan would require significant tuition increases. 'These additional increases will undermine the law school's successful formula and render it a mediocre institution,' the summary reads.") Whoever wrote that summary was, I'm guessing, trying to communicate that the burden for keeping us from drastic cuts will fall on our students, who will have to pay significantly more in tuition if the state can't figure out a way to help subsidize their education. "Mediocre," though, doesn't describe us now and won't describe us later.
So far this year, we've hired:
Linda Berger, Mercer School of Law. Seven edited volumes on legal writing, rhetoric, and the burgeoning field of metaphor & narrative. 11 articles. Founding editor of J. ALWD.
Ruben Garcia, Cal Western. Labor law expert, former Hastie Fellow, VAP at UC Davis. 16 articles, one book in progress (NYU Press).
Ian Bartrum, Drake University Law School. Ribicoff Fellow in Law at Yale Law School, VAP at Vermont Law School. 12 publications on constitutional interpretation and theory.
Michael Kagan, entry-level hire. Experienced refugee expert in the Middle East and North Africa with stints at Asylum Access, Africa Middle East Refugee Assistance (AMERA), Negotiations Support Unit, Frontiers Association, Musa'adeen Refugee Project, and Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, Amnesty International. 13 articles and book chapters. Teaching experience at American University in Cairo and Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law.
Year-long visitor:
Lisa Bingham, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Visitor at Berkeley, Hastings, Maxwell School of Syracuse, and Aberdeen School of Law. Fulbright fellow in Sweden. Industrial relations, ADR, and Labor Law expert with over 60 articles in peer-reviewed and law journals, over 25 book chapters, and 5 book reviews. Expert in labor negotiations and mediation.
That's on top of the folks we've hired over the last few years, each of them gems. Take a gander at our faculty home page (here).
Ultimately, Nevada has to decide if having an educated workforce is important and, if so, how it might help to encourage and maintain such a workforce. Not even 12 years ago (we're not even old enough to have a bar mitzvah yet), Boyd was a baby law school, formed out of Nevada's desire to keep its budding law students from having to leave the state to get a law degree. There has to be some happy medium between the low/no taxes stance we have now and the too-burdensome taxes that too many states have. In a competitive world, where employers can outsource almost anything to very smart people in other countries, we have to have smart, innovative people on the ground here in Nevada. That takes education, for starters.
Mediocre law school? Nope. We have a good law school, with engaged faculty and staff members and dedicated students. It's a warm community--one of the best I've ever enjoyed. I have confidence that we'll be able to figure out a way to go forward without losing our momentum. Whether the state is able to figure out a way to get its momentum back is another issue entirely.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Putting the news in perspective.
My hubby passed this along to me, and I'm passing it along to you.
[UPDATE] My friend George pointed out that, every Sunday, ABC lists all of the Marines and soldiers who were killed that week. Good point, George, and thanks for reminding me!
This message is sent with the deepest respect. This just made perfect sense to be shared.In humble gratitude for their sacrifice, and with the deepest condolences to their loved ones, I'm passing this along.
Lindsay Lohan is 24 and her story is all over the news because she's a celebrity and a drug addict. Charlie Sheen is all over the news because he is a celebrity and has multiple issues.
While...
Justin Allen, 23;
Brett Linley, 29;
Matthew Weikert, 29;
Justus Bartett, 27;
Dave Santos, 21;
Jesse Reed, 26;
Matthew Johnson, 21;
Zachary Fisher, 24;
Brandon King, 23;
Christopher Goeke, 23; and
Sheldon Tate, 27.
These are all Marines that gave their lives this week for us. There is no media for them. Not even a mention of their names.
[UPDATE] My friend George pointed out that, every Sunday, ABC lists all of the Marines and soldiers who were killed that week. Good point, George, and thanks for reminding me!
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Two reasons to think before acting.
Loved Luke Johnson's piece in today's Financial Times about "How to Spot an Impending Calamity" (here). Although high finance may be akin to rocket science,* the tips in this column are common-sense warning signs for a company that's going down the tubes.
And speaking of common-sense warning signs, take a look at this disciplinary case (here), describing what happens when a lawyer decides to fudge the record in the case by not indicating where he omitted part of the trial court's statement of facts. (For a good analysis of the issue, see the Legal Profession Blog's post about the case--here.) If a lawyer has to lie about the record to have a colorable case, then it's not a colorable case.
Lessons from both? People under pressure will do some really dumb things. Some of those dumb things will be intentional. Some won't. Remember: trust, but verify.
* Oh, and that reference to rocket science? We actually know a rocket scientist, so it's easy to call him and see if something is or isn't rocket science.
And speaking of common-sense warning signs, take a look at this disciplinary case (here), describing what happens when a lawyer decides to fudge the record in the case by not indicating where he omitted part of the trial court's statement of facts. (For a good analysis of the issue, see the Legal Profession Blog's post about the case--here.) If a lawyer has to lie about the record to have a colorable case, then it's not a colorable case.
Lessons from both? People under pressure will do some really dumb things. Some of those dumb things will be intentional. Some won't. Remember: trust, but verify.
* Oh, and that reference to rocket science? We actually know a rocket scientist, so it's easy to call him and see if something is or isn't rocket science.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
A tale of two abuses.
OK, look at Joe Nocera's column in yesterday's New York Times (here) ("Biggest Fish Face Little Risk of Being Caught"), and then look at Gretchen Morgenson's column today (here) ("Waiting Seven Years for Two Answers"). My own conclusion is that there's no downside risk to overreaching in ways that hurt consumers. (Mozilo, no jail time? Wells Fargo Bank, with three different stories about the reasons behind its inability to demonstrate proof of holding a note on a house?) Of course things aren't going to change. Not until there's some real, personal, honest-to-goodness, scary consequences for executives who tolerate obscenely bad behavior. And I'm not counting on there being any, unless Elizabeth Warren's Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection actually figures out a way to get the incentives for (1) punishing bad behavior and (2) allowing innovation right. If anyone can, she can; but I'm not sure it's possible.
And I come back to the same question, time and again: where are the boards? How do those independent directors get the information that they need to ensure that their officers are behaving appropriately? And how do those directors fight the urge to get along by playing along?
Friday, February 25, 2011
The GWU law students were exceptionally funny this year.
Warning: adult language. But see here. And a hat tip to one of our students, Jason Lather, for letting me know about it.
And some funny stuff from my buddy Rod Fong....
Rod sent me these sayings:*
To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
When the smog lifts in Los Angeles , U.C.L.A.
The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky ground.
The batteries were given out free of charge.
A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.
A will is a dead giveaway.
If you don't pay your exorcist, you can get repossessed.
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
Show me a piano falling down a mineshaft and I'll show you A-flat miner.
You are stuck with your debt if you can't budge it.
Local Area Network in Australia : The LAN down under.
A boiled egg is hard to beat.
When you've seen one shopping center you've seen a mall.
Police were called to a day care where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
Did you hear about the fellow whose whole left side was cut off? He's all right now.
If you take a laptop computer for a run you could jog your memory.
A bicycle can't stand alone; it is two tired.
In a democracy it's your vote that counts; in feudalism, it's your Count that votes.
When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.
The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine was fully recovered.
He had a photographic memory which was never developed.
Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.
When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.
Acupuncture: a jab well done.
Thanks, Rod!
*Rod wants y'all to know that he didn't write these. They've been passed along to him, and he's passed them along to me.
To write with a broken pencil is pointless.
When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
When the smog lifts in Los Angeles , U.C.L.A.
The professor discovered that her theory of earthquakes was on shaky ground.
The batteries were given out free of charge.
A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.
A will is a dead giveaway.
If you don't pay your exorcist, you can get repossessed.
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
Show me a piano falling down a mineshaft and I'll show you A-flat miner.
You are stuck with your debt if you can't budge it.
Local Area Network in Australia : The LAN down under.
A boiled egg is hard to beat.
When you've seen one shopping center you've seen a mall.
Police were called to a day care where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
Did you hear about the fellow whose whole left side was cut off? He's all right now.
If you take a laptop computer for a run you could jog your memory.
A bicycle can't stand alone; it is two tired.
In a democracy it's your vote that counts; in feudalism, it's your Count that votes.
When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.
The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine was fully recovered.
He had a photographic memory which was never developed.
Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.
When she saw her first strands of gray hair, she thought she'd dye.
Acupuncture: a jab well done.
Thanks, Rod!
*Rod wants y'all to know that he didn't write these. They've been passed along to him, and he's passed them along to me.
Shout-out to the Faculty Lounge blog.
I always like reading that blog, and today's gave me an honest-to-goodness spit-take. I love Malcolm Gladwell's books, and we were delighted when he agreed to let us reprint one of his articles in our second Enron book. That being said, this post cracked me up (here). In particular, check out the design for "Slurp."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
For you corporate law students out there....
My buddy, Professor Walter Effross, has come up with a list called Suggestions for Law Students: 101 Assets, Activities, and Approaches for Students in Business Associations/Corporations Courses. It's a must-read!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Some rules to live by, forwarded to me by Dad.
Here's what my dad forwarded to me recently. I loved them.
1. Get and stay out of your comfort zone. I believe that not much happens of any significance when we're in our comfort zone. I hear people say, "But I'm concerned about security." My response to that is simple: "Security is for cadavers."
2. Never give up. Almost nothing works the first time it's attempted. Just because what you're doing does not seem to be working, doesn't mean it won't work. It just means that it might not work the way you're doing it. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, and you wouldn't have an opportunity.
3. When you're ready to quit, you're closer than you think. There's an old Chinese saying that I just love, and I believe it is so true. It goes like this: "The temptation to quit will be greatest just before you are about to succeed."
4. With regard to whatever worries you, not only accept the worst thing that could happen, but make it a point to quantify what the worst thing could be. Very seldom will the worst consequence be anywhere near as bad as a cloud of "undefined consequences." My father would tell me early on, when I was struggling and losing my shirt trying to get Parsons Technology going, "Well, Robert, if it doesn't work, they can't eat you."
5. Focus on what you want to have happen. Remember that old saying, "As you think, so shall you be."
6. Take things a day at a time. No matter how difficult your situation is, you can get through it if you don't look too far into the future, and focus on the present moment. You can get through anything one day at a time.
7. Always be moving forward. Never stop investing. Never stop improving. Never stop doing something new. The moment you stop improving your organization, it starts to die. Make it your goal to be better each and every day, in some small way. Remember the Japanese concept of Kaizen. Small daily improvements eventually result in huge advantages.
8. Be quick to decide. Remember what General George S. Patton said: "A good plan violently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plan tomorrow."
9. Measure everything of significance. I swear this is true. Anything that is measured and watched improves.
10. Anything that is not managed will deteriorate. If you want to uncover problems you don't know about, take a few moments and look closely at the areas you haven't examined for a while. I guarantee you problems will be there.
11. Pay attention to your competitors, but pay more attention to what you're doing. When you look at your competitors, remember that everything looks perfect at a distance. Even the planet Earth, if you get far enough into space, looks like a peaceful place.
12. Never let anybody push you around. In our society, with our laws and even playing field, you have just as much right to what you're doing as anyone else, provided that what you're doing is legal.
13. Never expect life to be fair. Life isn't fair. You make your own breaks. You'll be doing good if the only meaning fair has to you, is something that you pay when you get on a bus (i.e., fare).
14. Solve your own problems. You'll find that by coming up with your own solutions, you'll develop a competitive edge. Masura Ibuka, the co-founder of SONY, said it best: "You never succeed in technology, business, or anything by following the others." There's also an old Asian saying that I remind myself of frequently. It goes like this: "A wise man keeps his own counsel."
15. Don't take yourself too seriously. Lighten up. Often, at least half of what we accomplish is due to luck. None of us are in control as much as we like to think we are.
16. There's always a reason to smile. Find it. After all, you're really lucky just to be alive. Life is short. More and more, I agree with my little brother. He always reminds me: "We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time!"
16 Rules To Live By
By Bob Parsons, Founder & CEO of GoDaddy.com
By Bob Parsons, Founder & CEO of GoDaddy.com
1. Get and stay out of your comfort zone. I believe that not much happens of any significance when we're in our comfort zone. I hear people say, "But I'm concerned about security." My response to that is simple: "Security is for cadavers."
2. Never give up. Almost nothing works the first time it's attempted. Just because what you're doing does not seem to be working, doesn't mean it won't work. It just means that it might not work the way you're doing it. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, and you wouldn't have an opportunity.
3. When you're ready to quit, you're closer than you think. There's an old Chinese saying that I just love, and I believe it is so true. It goes like this: "The temptation to quit will be greatest just before you are about to succeed."
4. With regard to whatever worries you, not only accept the worst thing that could happen, but make it a point to quantify what the worst thing could be. Very seldom will the worst consequence be anywhere near as bad as a cloud of "undefined consequences." My father would tell me early on, when I was struggling and losing my shirt trying to get Parsons Technology going, "Well, Robert, if it doesn't work, they can't eat you."
5. Focus on what you want to have happen. Remember that old saying, "As you think, so shall you be."
6. Take things a day at a time. No matter how difficult your situation is, you can get through it if you don't look too far into the future, and focus on the present moment. You can get through anything one day at a time.
7. Always be moving forward. Never stop investing. Never stop improving. Never stop doing something new. The moment you stop improving your organization, it starts to die. Make it your goal to be better each and every day, in some small way. Remember the Japanese concept of Kaizen. Small daily improvements eventually result in huge advantages.
8. Be quick to decide. Remember what General George S. Patton said: "A good plan violently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plan tomorrow."
9. Measure everything of significance. I swear this is true. Anything that is measured and watched improves.
10. Anything that is not managed will deteriorate. If you want to uncover problems you don't know about, take a few moments and look closely at the areas you haven't examined for a while. I guarantee you problems will be there.
11. Pay attention to your competitors, but pay more attention to what you're doing. When you look at your competitors, remember that everything looks perfect at a distance. Even the planet Earth, if you get far enough into space, looks like a peaceful place.
12. Never let anybody push you around. In our society, with our laws and even playing field, you have just as much right to what you're doing as anyone else, provided that what you're doing is legal.
13. Never expect life to be fair. Life isn't fair. You make your own breaks. You'll be doing good if the only meaning fair has to you, is something that you pay when you get on a bus (i.e., fare).
14. Solve your own problems. You'll find that by coming up with your own solutions, you'll develop a competitive edge. Masura Ibuka, the co-founder of SONY, said it best: "You never succeed in technology, business, or anything by following the others." There's also an old Asian saying that I remind myself of frequently. It goes like this: "A wise man keeps his own counsel."
15. Don't take yourself too seriously. Lighten up. Often, at least half of what we accomplish is due to luck. None of us are in control as much as we like to think we are.
16. There's always a reason to smile. Find it. After all, you're really lucky just to be alive. Life is short. More and more, I agree with my little brother. He always reminds me: "We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time!"
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Heroes don't like to be called "whistle-blowers."
In today's New York Times Gretchen Morgenson column, she describes the travails and eventually victory of former Countrywide exec Michael Winston (here). Winston sounds like exactly the sort of stand-up guy I'd want running my company (if I had one). Like other heroes who have called shenanigans on their company's blatant misdeeds, he probably would prefer just to say he did his job. Thanks to my former jobs, I've met a few other heroes of this ilk. (See here, here, and -- although I didn't meet her in person, she did agree to let us excerpt a few of her bio chapters in our second Enron book -- here.) Except for Cynthia Cooper's publicist, who does identify her as a whistle-blower, most of these heroes equate "whistle-blowing" with "snitching." They just call what they did "being ethical." And that's why they're my heroes.
From my buddy George Connelly:
A list of paraprosdokians, from my friend George:
A paraprosdokian is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax.
1. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
2. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
3. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
4. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
6. War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
8. Evening news is where they begin with "Good evening," and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
9. A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.
10. How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
11. Dolphins are so smart that within a few weeks of captivity, they can train people to stand on the very edge of the pool and throw them fish. (This one's doubly true for our two cats.)
12. I thought I wanted a career; turns out I just wanted pay checks.
13. Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says "In an emergency, notify:" I put "Doctor."
14. I didn't say it was your fault; I said I was blaming you.
15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.
16. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
17. The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
18. Hospitality: Making your guests feel like they're at home, even if you wish they were.
19. I discovered I scream the same way whether I'm about to be devoured by a great white shark or if a piece of seaweed touches my foot. (That one's credited to Kevin James.)
20. There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
21. I always take life with a grain of salt, plus a slice of lemon, and a shot of tequila.
22. When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water.
23. You're never too old to learn something stupid.
24. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
George has a sense of humor that I love. Thanks, George!
A paraprosdokian is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax.
1. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
2. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
3. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
4. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
6. War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
8. Evening news is where they begin with "Good evening," and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
9. A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.
10. How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
11. Dolphins are so smart that within a few weeks of captivity, they can train people to stand on the very edge of the pool and throw them fish. (This one's doubly true for our two cats.)
12. I thought I wanted a career; turns out I just wanted pay checks.
13. Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says "In an emergency, notify:" I put "Doctor."
14. I didn't say it was your fault; I said I was blaming you.
15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.
16. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
17. The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
18. Hospitality: Making your guests feel like they're at home, even if you wish they were.
19. I discovered I scream the same way whether I'm about to be devoured by a great white shark or if a piece of seaweed touches my foot. (That one's credited to Kevin James.)
20. There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
21. I always take life with a grain of salt, plus a slice of lemon, and a shot of tequila.
22. When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water.
23. You're never too old to learn something stupid.
24. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
George has a sense of humor that I love. Thanks, George!
A nice salute to Judge Steen, on his retirement.
See here. I didn't know Charlie Fielder (the second part of the post), but it's clear that he made many lives better.
Judge Steen's one of my fave folks--and he definitely made the world better on his job's watch.
Judge Steen's one of my fave folks--and he definitely made the world better on his job's watch.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Tim Canova's point about the budget crisis.
My buddy Tim Canova writes very interesting things, and here's his latest op-ed on the national budget crisis (here).
Two examples of why my dentist ROCKS.
Not only is Sam Savage a great dentist, but he and his staff are some of the nicest people around.
A nice salute to a very talented CRO--William Snyder.
Monday, February 14, 2011
A professor to watch.
I really like Michelle Harner's work (for an example, see here--the Legal Ethics Forum just highlighted it). Her combination of experience as a former law partner and her work analyzing the behavior of various players in chapter 11 makes her one of my "must reads."
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
More on Brent Newton's article about law faculties.
Over at TaxProf Blog, Paul Caron has highlighted some juicy quotes from Brent Newton's article (you can download it here) about whether law professors are qualified to teach law (here). The article, and the post, remind me of this article (here).
Update on the Samsung printer.
After I sent a letter to the Samsung America headquarters asking for compensation for the hour of computer guru time it took to get my printer up and running, Lisa from the President's Office called. Suffice it to say I'm compensated.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Bragging on my Professional Responsibility students.
So I'm teaching Professional Responsibility again this semester, and I'm doing it primarily through "law firm" presentations: groups of law students who have to present the day's material in a way that provides coverage and encourages class participation.
Students have used movie clips, television shows, and games (including a rousing game of "Jeopardy," in which one of the categories was "What Would Rapoport Do?"--every day's presentation has been extremely good. What makes me particularly happy about each of the presentations is that the students are learning that they can teach themselves the law. That's a skill they'll need throughout their careers.
So: we've covered in class the notion that whether someone is a client depends on whether that person reasonably believes that she is a client. I've joked before that lawyers should wear shirts that have "I am not your lawyer" on the front and "This is not legal advice" on the back.
But I never expected one of the law firms to take me so literally:
Meet Kristin Gifford, Cheryl Grames, Anna Clark, and Chelsey Bosworth. I expect that they will add entrepreneurship to their legal skills after graduation.
Students have used movie clips, television shows, and games (including a rousing game of "Jeopardy," in which one of the categories was "What Would Rapoport Do?"--every day's presentation has been extremely good. What makes me particularly happy about each of the presentations is that the students are learning that they can teach themselves the law. That's a skill they'll need throughout their careers.
So: we've covered in class the notion that whether someone is a client depends on whether that person reasonably believes that she is a client. I've joked before that lawyers should wear shirts that have "I am not your lawyer" on the front and "This is not legal advice" on the back.
But I never expected one of the law firms to take me so literally:
Meet Kristin Gifford, Cheryl Grames, Anna Clark, and Chelsey Bosworth. I expect that they will add entrepreneurship to their legal skills after graduation.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Nevada's budget, as seen through the eyes of the UNLV/Brookings Mountain West study.
See here for some very sensible advice.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Samsung--SERIOUSLY?
A happy customer service story.
I bought the Samsung-From-Hell printer from an Amazon "storefront" company, "FastFriendlyService.com." The service at this store is one of the very best I've ever seen.
One of the customer service representatives has sent me some possibilities for getting the darn printer to work wirelessly, and I'm going to try those instructions later today. Thanks, FastFriendlyService!
One of the customer service representatives has sent me some possibilities for getting the darn printer to work wirelessly, and I'm going to try those instructions later today. Thanks, FastFriendlyService!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
And a lovely op-ed from Danny Tarkanian.
See here. And this suggestion dovetails nicely with the Van Niel mortgage proposal.
Four takes on the financial crisis, and why I agree with Joe Nocera and Frank Partnoy.
Here are three different takes: one in the WSJ from Bill Thomas, Keith Hennessey, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (here), one in the WSJ from Holman Jenkins, Jr. (here), one from Joe Nocera in yesterday's NYT (here), and one from Frank Partnoy in today's NYT (here).
Look, everyone's right in pointing out that the crisis had nuanced causes. That's not rocket science. (I have ways of proving that statement--we have a friend who is an actual rocket scientist, and I can always ask him.)
But here's Nocera's bottom line, written in his inimitable style:
Look, everyone's right in pointing out that the crisis had nuanced causes. That's not rocket science. (I have ways of proving that statement--we have a friend who is an actual rocket scientist, and I can always ask him.)
But here's Nocera's bottom line, written in his inimitable style:
In pushing the idea that the crisis was avoidable, Mr. Angelides is also trying to make an additional point: if we just do it better next time, we will avoid the next crisis. I’m all for holding the bad actors accountable, and to the extent the F.C.I.C. has done that, I tip my hat. But mass delusions, alas, are part of the human condition, and no report, no matter how scathing, is going to change that.That's exactly the point we made in our second Enron book (available here). Until we all recognize that humans are hard-wired to make certain cognitive mistakes, we will keep looking for nuanced causes that, ultimately, are irrelevant. That's why I liked Jenkins's point that, unless we figure out incentives that will keep people from doing what humans do best (those darn cognitive errors), we'll see the problem repeat itself. And why do I like Frank Partnoy's point? Because he's seen the Wall Street world from the inside and knows whereof he writes. When Frank points out how partisan politics skewed the Financial Crisis report, I listen.
And thus the question really isn’t whether it will happen again. It’s when.
Dear Samsung: So far, you owe me $1200, and the computer person isn't even here yet.
I bought a Samsung CLP-310w this week because my last attempt at a wireless printer resulted in paper jams whenever more than 2 sheets were loaded (the HP LaserJet Pro P1102w).
Samsung reps--yes, that would be over 2 hours of conversations with Samsung reps to date--agree that there's a problem with the Samsung software and Mac OS 10.6.6. But they don't seem to have a way to fix it. I hope that HotLink Data does. Typically, the folks at HotLink Data can fix anything.
Samsung did, however, suggest that I hook it up directly to my router and computer.
Apparently, Samsung and I disagree about what "wireless" means.
UPDATE: I sent this blog post to Samsung, and here's what Samsung said this morning:
Samsung reps--yes, that would be over 2 hours of conversations with Samsung reps to date--agree that there's a problem with the Samsung software and Mac OS 10.6.6. But they don't seem to have a way to fix it. I hope that HotLink Data does. Typically, the folks at HotLink Data can fix anything.
Samsung did, however, suggest that I hook it up directly to my router and computer.
Apparently, Samsung and I disagree about what "wireless" means.
UPDATE: I sent this blog post to Samsung, and here's what Samsung said this morning:
Thank you for contacting Samsung Electronics.Yep, you figured it out before Samsung did. That's the very same software that Samsung's Customer Service has already asked me to download three times.
We understand that you need drivers for Mac OS 10.6.6. for the printer.
We are sorry to inform you that as of now we do not have drivers ready for Mac OS 10.6.6. however, our
developers are designing the drivers for Mac OS 10.6.6. As of now the drivers available are for Mac OS 10.3 ~
10.6.
We are providing you with the link for the print drivers for Mac OS 10.3 ~ 10.6.
http://goo.gl/4iH4B.
Friday, January 28, 2011
My life this week.
See here and here. And, mind you, I like my dentist a lot. He and his staff are all wonderful: friendly, talented, and professional. I just wish I had perfect teeth and that I was not a wuss about dentistry.
Best line my dentist used this week:
Me: "I'm going to need Mr. Nose [laughing gas, a/k/a nitrous oxide."
Dentist: "OK."
Me: "I can't get addicted to this stuff, right?"
Dentist: "Do you have a scuba tank at home?"
Me: "Nope."
Dentist: "Then you should be just fine."
Now you know one of the reasons I like him.
Best line my dentist used this week:
Me: "I'm going to need Mr. Nose [laughing gas, a/k/a nitrous oxide."
Dentist: "OK."
Me: "I can't get addicted to this stuff, right?"
Dentist: "Do you have a scuba tank at home?"
Me: "Nope."
Dentist: "Then you should be just fine."
Now you know one of the reasons I like him.
A tale of two customer service approaches, part 2.
So I'm picking up friends at the airport, and I must have written the time of arrival down incorrectly. The airline had a flight coming in from the appropriate place at the time I'd written down, but my friends weren't on that flight. The flight number I'd written down was coming from a place nowhere near my friends' location, and it showed an arrival time of about 90 minutes later.
I went to the lost luggage office of the airline, explained my predicament, and asked the person behind the desk to help me locate my friends. She told me that she could neither confirm whether my friends were on the earlier flight nor could she confirm whether they were on the later flight. So I called the airline and finally reached a human, who was nice enough to confirm that my friends were on the later flight, even though the location associated with that flight seemed off to me.
Guess which route (no pun intended) I'll take in the future to find out this type of information?
I went to the lost luggage office of the airline, explained my predicament, and asked the person behind the desk to help me locate my friends. She told me that she could neither confirm whether my friends were on the earlier flight nor could she confirm whether they were on the later flight. So I called the airline and finally reached a human, who was nice enough to confirm that my friends were on the later flight, even though the location associated with that flight seemed off to me.
Guess which route (no pun intended) I'll take in the future to find out this type of information?
A tale of two customer service approaches, part 1.
So earlier this week, I needed two large FedEx boxes to ship some dresses to a reseller (Artrhythms.com). I went to FedEx store #A--no large boxes, although the counter serviceperson offered to sell me two boxes to ship the dresses. I suggested that, perhaps, because his FedEx store was out of boxes, he might want to find some for me rather than charge me for other materials.
He did, and he sent me to FedEx store #B. This store bent over backwards to be helpful: found me the boxes, helped me ship them, gave me additional supplies, and--throughout it all--everyone behind the counter was professional, with lovely senses of humor.
Guess which store I'll use from now on?
He did, and he sent me to FedEx store #B. This store bent over backwards to be helpful: found me the boxes, helped me ship them, gave me additional supplies, and--throughout it all--everyone behind the counter was professional, with lovely senses of humor.
Guess which store I'll use from now on?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
More insight into the mortgage mess, and a story about a lawyer who helped pro bono.
See Joe Nocera's column today (here). And I love his turn of phrase: the "Heisenberg Journalism Principle" strikes just the right tone for folks who know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Another voice talking about the Las Vegas mortgage mess.
At breakfast this morning, I read Scott Dickensheets's column (here), and I really liked his take on the moral issues inherent in considering whether to walk away on an underwater mortgage. His points add to the reasons why I like the Van Niel mortgage proposal (see here).
Jon Macey had a great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Bravo to John Jay Douglass!
My former colleague, John Jay Douglass (here), passed along the news that he's retiring from law teaching. I have mixed feelings--happy that he and his wife, Papoose, can spend more time together, and sad that his career in academia's ending. As you can tell from even the brief description on the University of Houston Law Center's page above, he's educated not only law students but also district attorneys and other already-graduated professionals.
Here's to you, JJD! I think the world of you!
Here's to you, JJD! I think the world of you!
A salute to Deana, the Yosemite Ranger.
Day 1: fresh powder, very little ice on the trails.Day 2: ice, ice, ice.
Thank you, Deana, for reminding both of us that we love this sport, even though we're still rank beginners!
And, if you love Yosemite as much as we do, you might consider joining the Yosemite Conservancy (here).
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A shout-out thank you to Joseph McDaniel!
Friday, January 14, 2011
A reminder about the requirement that fees must be reasonable before a bankruptcy court will authorize their payment.
Blaire Cahn has done a lovely write-up at Weil's Bankruptcy Blog (here) of the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in Montana Department of Revenue v. Duncan, No. 09-36062, 2010 WL 4903952 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010).
Having done my fair share of fee reviews--and I enjoy fee examining work!--I think that the main issue for attorneys seeking payment from estate funds is a question of judgment. It's hard, when someone is in the middle of a case, to take the time to ask, "Should I be doing this work?," especially when clients want 100% top-notch work at all times. But that judgment--at the time someone has to make the go/no-go decision on billing for something--is crucial.
I think that the most rewarding part of fee examining work is having the luxury to call up a professional, if I have a question about the bill, and talk through whether the work (or the expense) was reasonable. Sometimes, the professional explains why some hinky looking number was actually reasonable, and then I don't have a problem with it and can forward it on, quite happily, to the court for a final decision. Sometimes, though, the work or expense really can't be considered reasonable. (My favorite example: billing the cost of a man's shirt to the estate, on the theory that there was an unexpected overnight visit.) The job of a fee examiner is to help the court determine reasonableness, because the court makes that ultimate call.
The tough part about reasonableness is the danger of hindsight bias. I look for "reasonable at the time that the decision to bill/expense something is made"--not for "unreasonable several months later, in retrospect." Hindsight bias really shouldn't complicate the review.
In the end, it's all about using judgment (and then hoping that the court agrees with you). For more of my take on fees, see here.
Having done my fair share of fee reviews--and I enjoy fee examining work!--I think that the main issue for attorneys seeking payment from estate funds is a question of judgment. It's hard, when someone is in the middle of a case, to take the time to ask, "Should I be doing this work?," especially when clients want 100% top-notch work at all times. But that judgment--at the time someone has to make the go/no-go decision on billing for something--is crucial.
I think that the most rewarding part of fee examining work is having the luxury to call up a professional, if I have a question about the bill, and talk through whether the work (or the expense) was reasonable. Sometimes, the professional explains why some hinky looking number was actually reasonable, and then I don't have a problem with it and can forward it on, quite happily, to the court for a final decision. Sometimes, though, the work or expense really can't be considered reasonable. (My favorite example: billing the cost of a man's shirt to the estate, on the theory that there was an unexpected overnight visit.) The job of a fee examiner is to help the court determine reasonableness, because the court makes that ultimate call.
The tough part about reasonableness is the danger of hindsight bias. I look for "reasonable at the time that the decision to bill/expense something is made"--not for "unreasonable several months later, in retrospect." Hindsight bias really shouldn't complicate the review.
In the end, it's all about using judgment (and then hoping that the court agrees with you). For more of my take on fees, see here.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Best speech using behavioral economics that you've never heard.
My buddy Steve Sather, the author of A Texas Bankruptcy Lawyer's Blog, sent me this link to a speech at the Ass'n of American Law Schools that Annelise Riles was going to give, had she been able to make it to the meeting. Her speech is posted on the Credit Slips blog (here). Her talk would have addressed how we might actually use regulation to change behavior, rather than (my editorial comment here) pretending that we know how to do that. Great stuff!
Sunday, January 09, 2011
A hat-tip to Lowering the Bar for this classic Canadian legal opinion.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Details on how the Van Niel mortgage proposal would work.
Here's how the Van Niel mortgage proposal would work.
Banks with borrowers who are underwater but current on their loans should offer the following deal to those borrowers:
(1) The bank reduces the interest rate on the mortgage to a lower rate (at a rate at least equal to what the folks who have defaulted are being offered, thanks to the bailout).
(2) The bank agrees that, for every "X" years that the borrowers remain current on their loans and live in the house (no "spec" properties--just actual homestead-type homes), the bank will reduce the outstanding principal amount of the loan by "Y" dollars.
(3) The borrowers, in exchange for the principal reduction and reduced interest rate mortgage agree that if, they sell the house within "Z" years, they will give any profits made on that sale to the bank. (The potential profit gives the bank an incentive to "deal"-- if house prices improve, it might recoup at least a portion of its lost interest on the reduced interest mortgage and principal reduction.)
Example: House is bought for $300,000; it has a $210,000 mortgage @ 6% for 30 years; borrowers put 30% down on the house. House is now worth $125,000, and the balance due on the mortgage is $200,000. (Welcome to Las Vegas.)
Bank agrees to reduce the interest rate by 1% (revised rate is 5%) AND to reduce the principal on the note by $5,000 per year for 5 years. At closing, the house is valued at $125,000 and the mortgage is $195,000 @ 5% for 30 years.
After year 1, mortgage is paid down to $192,123.04 (less $5,000 = $187,123.04).
After year 2, mortgage is paid down to $184,177.59 (less $5,000 = $179,177.59).
After year 3, mortgage is paid down to $176,165.50 (less $5,000 = $171,165.50).
After year 4, mortgage is paid down to $168,089.17 (less $5,000 = $163,089.17).
If the borrower sells the house in the first five years for any reason, the bank gets any profit made by the sale. At end of a 5-year period, the house may still be worth $125,000 (maybe the value increases--or maybe the borrower is in Las Vegas, so the "floor" on house prices keeps falling--sigh), but the principal on the mortgage has been reduced to a much more manageable $163,089.17.
The homeowner is significantly closer to breaking even, and has much less incentive to hand the keys back to the bank and simply walk away.
One more advantage: the bank doesn't have to write down the value of the home in one big lump--unlike a foreclosure or short sale.
Using future bailout money, if any, to buy down the mortgages of underwater homeowners who are current on their mortgages is as least as productive a use of the money as is giving the bailout money to delinquent NINJA homeowners who have no chance of keeping their houses in the long run.
Over time, everyone wins: the banks won't own the underwater houses because the homeowners will have an incentive to stay in the houses (without feeling like dummies for honoring their obligations) and housing prices won't continue to plummet because there will be fewer neighborhoods with massive foreclosures.
And now you know that part of the reason that I married Jeff Van Niel is that he's very, very smart.
Banks with borrowers who are underwater but current on their loans should offer the following deal to those borrowers:
(1) The bank reduces the interest rate on the mortgage to a lower rate (at a rate at least equal to what the folks who have defaulted are being offered, thanks to the bailout).
(2) The bank agrees that, for every "X" years that the borrowers remain current on their loans and live in the house (no "spec" properties--just actual homestead-type homes), the bank will reduce the outstanding principal amount of the loan by "Y" dollars.
(3) The borrowers, in exchange for the principal reduction and reduced interest rate mortgage agree that if, they sell the house within "Z" years, they will give any profits made on that sale to the bank. (The potential profit gives the bank an incentive to "deal"-- if house prices improve, it might recoup at least a portion of its lost interest on the reduced interest mortgage and principal reduction.)
Example: House is bought for $300,000; it has a $210,000 mortgage @ 6% for 30 years; borrowers put 30% down on the house. House is now worth $125,000, and the balance due on the mortgage is $200,000. (Welcome to Las Vegas.)
Bank agrees to reduce the interest rate by 1% (revised rate is 5%) AND to reduce the principal on the note by $5,000 per year for 5 years. At closing, the house is valued at $125,000 and the mortgage is $195,000 @ 5% for 30 years.
After year 1, mortgage is paid down to $192,123.04 (less $5,000 = $187,123.04).
After year 2, mortgage is paid down to $184,177.59 (less $5,000 = $179,177.59).
After year 3, mortgage is paid down to $176,165.50 (less $5,000 = $171,165.50).
After year 4, mortgage is paid down to $168,089.17 (less $5,000 = $163,089.17).
If the borrower sells the house in the first five years for any reason, the bank gets any profit made by the sale. At end of a 5-year period, the house may still be worth $125,000 (maybe the value increases--or maybe the borrower is in Las Vegas, so the "floor" on house prices keeps falling--sigh), but the principal on the mortgage has been reduced to a much more manageable $163,089.17.
The homeowner is significantly closer to breaking even, and has much less incentive to hand the keys back to the bank and simply walk away.
One more advantage: the bank doesn't have to write down the value of the home in one big lump--unlike a foreclosure or short sale.
Using future bailout money, if any, to buy down the mortgages of underwater homeowners who are current on their mortgages is as least as productive a use of the money as is giving the bailout money to delinquent NINJA homeowners who have no chance of keeping their houses in the long run.
Over time, everyone wins: the banks won't own the underwater houses because the homeowners will have an incentive to stay in the houses (without feeling like dummies for honoring their obligations) and housing prices won't continue to plummet because there will be fewer neighborhoods with massive foreclosures.
And now you know that part of the reason that I married Jeff Van Niel is that he's very, very smart.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Two great mortgage op-eds in today's New York Times
Read Bethany McLean's perspective on 30-year mortgages here, and Alex Perriello's solution to our current crisis in underwater mortgage's here. Alex's solution is eerily similar to the Van Niel mortgage solution (here), which I've been touting for over a year now, and not just because I'm married to the Van Niel in question.
Update (1/7/11): see here for how that proposal might work in practice.
Update (1/7/11): see here for how that proposal might work in practice.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Here's some nice news on 1/1/11....
Thanks, Dr. Management, Ph.D. blog, for listing me as a top business blog (here)!
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Yep. I was a chump.
See here. This TaxProf Blog post points out how much creative accounting folderol goes into reporting employment stats of law schools to U.S. News.
As I've said before (see here), lying on these questionnaires isn't much different from the "earnings management" that went on at Enron and the other like-minded companies. Refusing to lie puts schools at a huge disadvantage, but lying just results in a race to the bottom in accuracy while pursuing a race to the top in "100% employed" reports.
As I've said before (see here), lying on these questionnaires isn't much different from the "earnings management" that went on at Enron and the other like-minded companies. Refusing to lie puts schools at a huge disadvantage, but lying just results in a race to the bottom in accuracy while pursuing a race to the top in "100% employed" reports.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Yet another good bankruptcy blog.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
A tale of two customer service approaches.
In today's Business Day section of the New York Times, there's one story about how Disney is able to reduce the frustration level of people who are waiting in lines at the parks (here) and another story about how difficult it is for the airlines to cope with all of the headaches about having to cancel flights during bad weather (here).
Disney has incentives to keep its guests happy. Happy guests buy more souvenirs, come back to the parks, and tell their friends about their experiences there.
Airlines, on the other hand, have that new legislation -- the law that requires them to pay fines for staying on the tarmac for too many hours -- and their thin profit margins, which combine to reduce their ability (or desire?) to figure out how to reroute stranded customers when all flights are already filled to capacity.
Maybe it's a combination of company culture and outside incentives, but the juxtaposition of the two approaches is telling. Disney wants to make people enjoy their time in its parks; airlines want to keep their costs low.
Disney has incentives to keep its guests happy. Happy guests buy more souvenirs, come back to the parks, and tell their friends about their experiences there.
Airlines, on the other hand, have that new legislation -- the law that requires them to pay fines for staying on the tarmac for too many hours -- and their thin profit margins, which combine to reduce their ability (or desire?) to figure out how to reroute stranded customers when all flights are already filled to capacity.
Maybe it's a combination of company culture and outside incentives, but the juxtaposition of the two approaches is telling. Disney wants to make people enjoy their time in its parks; airlines want to keep their costs low.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Shame on you, Pat Buchanan.
I always hesitate to read Pat Buchanan's columns, because I know that I'll end up with a eye-twitch from his invective. On the other hand, I skim them because I want to know what people whose views differ from mine are thinking. (Sometimes, their points can change my mind; sometimes, they can't. But I like to keep an open mind.)
But today's column, "The Marines: Sacrificed for San Francisco values," took the cake, and not in a good "I-like-cake" way. You can read this claptrap here.
First off, Mr. Buchanan, don't use my beloved Marines for your own nefarious purposes. Sure, there were some Marines who opposed "don't ask, don't tell," and sure, people can disagree about DADT. Other people, though, think that a person's sexuality has no bearing on his or her ability to serve. Remember the high-profile change of heart that Colin Powell had about DADT (here)?
Here's the line in your op-ed that drove me nuts: "Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?" Seriously????
If you really believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's your right. But, then, be consistent. Condemn all of the other sins that can occur in the military, too. What about military personnel having affairs? If adultery is a sin, where's your outrage about that behavior among opposite-sex military personnel? And if you're upset about the potential sexual harassment, where's your indignation about opposite-sex harassment--or haven't you been paying attention to those reports over the years?
To me, many of the arguments that people made about DADT smacked of the same logic that opposed integration in the military: "It's too much." "The nation's values disagree." "Soldiers and Marines shouldn't be distracted by having to share quarters with people of other races." Integration worked out pretty well, didn't it?
Oh, and don't assume that only the liberals rejoiced when DADT was repealed. I support a strong military. I think that this nation would be better off if we had some sort of compulsory service (military or public works) after high school--in part because I believe that we owe our country some payback for the benefits that we get and in part because I think that we're better off when we mix together people who might not normally meet each other. (And I feel ashamed that I didn't serve.) I think that the military can provide a wonderful career--and I'm delighted that, now, schools should be able to let the military recruit on campus because the recruiters can sign the anti-discrimination pledge.
And I worry about the deficit. I like the free-market (although, to be fair, I don't always trust that it works), and I don't think that "more regulation" is necessarily the best answer to our problems. I don't think that everyone belongs in college. I worry about too-high taxes. So, no, I'm not a knee-jerk liberal.
What I am is a person who loves her same-sex friends, who has worked with gay and lesbian colleagues for her entire life, and who fears that the military was irretrievably weakened by jettisoning talented people because of their sexuality.
Shame on you, Mr. Buchanan, for assuming that homosexuals in the military will be some sort of bad influence on those small-town kids. Some people in the military will be bad influences, but most won't be. Blind prejudice, on the other hand, doesn't help our country at all.
Beware the unintended consequences of bad incentives.
What do these stories have in common? From the Wall Street Journal (written by Liz Rappaport and Michael Rapoport--distant relations at best), "Ernst Accused of Lehman Whitewash" (here); from the New York Times and David Streitfeld, "Homes at Risk, and No Help From Lawyers" (here); and from John Stossel, "Uncle Sam Will Help You Buy an Alpaca" (here).
Each of these stories has the same subtext: people behave according to the incentives that reward them.
If it is true that Ernst facilitated the bad accounting at Lehman (let's wait and see, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised), my guess is that the facilitation was due to the twin incentives of (1) rewards for pleasing clients (remember Enron?) and (2) no rewards for calling shenanigans on accounting tricks that--at the very least--violate the spirit of accounting rules, if not the technical wording of those rules. (For the basic advice to avoid all actions that can be explained by, "Well, technically, it's ok," see the paper that Colin Marks and I wrote for the Fordham Law Review, "The Corporate Lawyer's Role in a Contemporary Democracy," which you can download here.)
Want to prohibit fraudsters from preying on distressed homeowners? California tried, by enacting a law that prohibits lawyers from being paid for doing loan modifications until the modifications are approved. Good for California for trying to squeeze out those businesses that took the modification money and ran, before getting their clients the modifications. But give California a big "oops" for not exempting legitimate lawyers who just can't afford to float the entire fees for a process that might take years to complete (and which could be discharged in bankruptcy if, after the modification, the client still needs to restructure debt).
And those alpaca subsidies? Tax credits can be great ways to shape behavior but, well, they shape behavior. All regulation shapes behavior--again, by providing incentives or disincentives. Much of regulation is important: criminal penalties, pollution standards, food and drug standards, etc. But lawmakers need to understand that regulation can create unintended behavior as well and to think hard about what might go wrong with a poorly written or ill-conceived regulation. For example, rage at the bizarrely high pay for poor-performing executives and the revolving door for inattentive board members has created a backlash of irritation at all high salaries. (Well, maybe not the high salaries of athletes, but the high salaries of non-athlete businesspeople.) Redistribution of wealth from all high-earners to more low-earners wouldn't be the correct response to that rage. (I still remember enjoying Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is actually available--yay!--here.) Again, cutting too wide a swath will create more off-target incentives.
People are hard-wired to behave in certain ways. If we're going to create incentives for behavior--and we will always create some incentives--we need to try to think those incentives all the way through.
Each of these stories has the same subtext: people behave according to the incentives that reward them.
If it is true that Ernst facilitated the bad accounting at Lehman (let's wait and see, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised), my guess is that the facilitation was due to the twin incentives of (1) rewards for pleasing clients (remember Enron?) and (2) no rewards for calling shenanigans on accounting tricks that--at the very least--violate the spirit of accounting rules, if not the technical wording of those rules. (For the basic advice to avoid all actions that can be explained by, "Well, technically, it's ok," see the paper that Colin Marks and I wrote for the Fordham Law Review, "The Corporate Lawyer's Role in a Contemporary Democracy," which you can download here.)
Want to prohibit fraudsters from preying on distressed homeowners? California tried, by enacting a law that prohibits lawyers from being paid for doing loan modifications until the modifications are approved. Good for California for trying to squeeze out those businesses that took the modification money and ran, before getting their clients the modifications. But give California a big "oops" for not exempting legitimate lawyers who just can't afford to float the entire fees for a process that might take years to complete (and which could be discharged in bankruptcy if, after the modification, the client still needs to restructure debt).
And those alpaca subsidies? Tax credits can be great ways to shape behavior but, well, they shape behavior. All regulation shapes behavior--again, by providing incentives or disincentives. Much of regulation is important: criminal penalties, pollution standards, food and drug standards, etc. But lawmakers need to understand that regulation can create unintended behavior as well and to think hard about what might go wrong with a poorly written or ill-conceived regulation. For example, rage at the bizarrely high pay for poor-performing executives and the revolving door for inattentive board members has created a backlash of irritation at all high salaries. (Well, maybe not the high salaries of athletes, but the high salaries of non-athlete businesspeople.) Redistribution of wealth from all high-earners to more low-earners wouldn't be the correct response to that rage. (I still remember enjoying Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is actually available--yay!--here.) Again, cutting too wide a swath will create more off-target incentives.
People are hard-wired to behave in certain ways. If we're going to create incentives for behavior--and we will always create some incentives--we need to try to think those incentives all the way through.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
OK, I might be biased, but...
Here's my vote for the best university holiday card ever: here. Happy holidays to all, and GO, OWLS!
Monday, December 20, 2010
New bankruptcy blog in Nevada.
See the link here. I know Brian, and I'm really impressed with his work. This blog should be great.
And if you want some other good bankruptcy and bankruptcy related blogs, to round out your collection, see:
WSJ: Bankruptcy Beat (here).
Credit Slips (here).
A Texas Bankruptcy Lawyer's Blog (here).
A Clean Slate: The Bankruptcy Law Blog (here).
And if you want some other good bankruptcy and bankruptcy related blogs, to round out your collection, see:
WSJ: Bankruptcy Beat (here).
Credit Slips (here).
A Texas Bankruptcy Lawyer's Blog (here).
A Clean Slate: The Bankruptcy Law Blog (here).
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Best lesson taken from Madoff fiasco.
See Michael Kubin's opinion piece in the New York Times (here).
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Shout-out to Greg Duhl for some of his latest articles.
Greg Duhl gave me a heads-up about two of his latest articles, Divided Loyalties: The Attorney's Role in Bankruptcy Reaffirmations (available here) and Social Networking and Workers' Compensation: Law at the Crossroads (co-authored with Jaclyn Millner) (available here).
I've been enjoying both of them--although I haven't yet seen The Social Network, the ethics issues surrounding social networking have begun to catch my eye, and based on some pro bono work I've done, the ethics issues in consumer bankruptcy cases are huge.
Thanks, Greg!
I've been enjoying both of them--although I haven't yet seen The Social Network, the ethics issues surrounding social networking have begun to catch my eye, and based on some pro bono work I've done, the ethics issues in consumer bankruptcy cases are huge.
Thanks, Greg!
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Customer service warning for ballroom dancers: AVOID "www.dancerschoiceonline.com"
I ordered three pairs of shoes in mid-November. On 11/18, the company informed me that one of the three pairs was out of stock, and that my refund would be "coming." It's 12/4. No refund yet.
One pair of shoes didn't fit. It took six emails -- SIX -- to find out that returns went to the shoe manufacturer, not to Dancers' Choice.
The email response is spotty, painfully slow, and woefully incomplete.
No matter the temptation, stay away from this company. It's got some of the worst customer service I've seen in a long time.
One pair of shoes didn't fit. It took six emails -- SIX -- to find out that returns went to the shoe manufacturer, not to Dancers' Choice.
The email response is spotty, painfully slow, and woefully incomplete.
No matter the temptation, stay away from this company. It's got some of the worst customer service I've seen in a long time.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Radisson at LAX: best of times, worst of times (apologies to Dickens)
So I really like the California Star Ball--it's a fun competition with very generous scholarship money. I also like the front desk staff of the Radisson @ LAX: they're gracious and helpful, as is the bell desk and the BREAKFAST staff at the restaurant there.
But seriously--the food service at lunch and dinner (and at the bar) is woefully short of decent. 30-45 minutes for a simple meal in an uncrowded room? 30-40 minutes for take-out?
Example: last night, we finished dancing at around 9, and we wanted to get a to-go order at the restaurant so we could watch the rest of the competition. (We tried seeing what was pre-made at the bar. The pre-made case was completely bare.) So we waited 5 minutes at the maître d’s station, only to be told that we should order take-out at the bar. (Lunch takeout is at the maître d’s station.) So we went to the bar. After watching someone rinse wine glasses for another 5 minutes, we asked about how we could get a fast meal to go. We explained that we just wanted to order the meal that would take the least time to prepare. The person behind the bar (not the bartender, but someone else with a Radisson badge) snapped that anything would take 30-40 minutes.
Anything? Sliced tomatoes with mozzarella would take 30-40 minutes? A plain salad would take 30-40 minutes?
Yep.
Thank goodness for my roommate, who had the patience to stay. I left, and Angela shared her meal (salad and fries) with me, after waiting 30 minutes for that order herself.
It's a shame that a basically nice hotel can have such a split personality when it comes to the restaurant. I spoke to the hotel management, who told me that the restaurant isn't owned by the same people who own the hotel. I also spoke to the restaurant's morning manager, who was (as always) very nice. Everyone explained that no one had complained before. Seriously? No one? Not even the person I'd seen complaining on Friday?
Here's the thing, Radisson: I plan to make sure that I post a link to this comment on a lot of travel rating websites. That old rule about customer service applies to me, too. Do well, and I'll tell at least ten people. Do poorly, and I'll make sure to tell many more people.
But seriously--the food service at lunch and dinner (and at the bar) is woefully short of decent. 30-45 minutes for a simple meal in an uncrowded room? 30-40 minutes for take-out?
Example: last night, we finished dancing at around 9, and we wanted to get a to-go order at the restaurant so we could watch the rest of the competition. (We tried seeing what was pre-made at the bar. The pre-made case was completely bare.) So we waited 5 minutes at the maître d’s station, only to be told that we should order take-out at the bar. (Lunch takeout is at the maître d’s station.) So we went to the bar. After watching someone rinse wine glasses for another 5 minutes, we asked about how we could get a fast meal to go. We explained that we just wanted to order the meal that would take the least time to prepare. The person behind the bar (not the bartender, but someone else with a Radisson badge) snapped that anything would take 30-40 minutes.
Anything? Sliced tomatoes with mozzarella would take 30-40 minutes? A plain salad would take 30-40 minutes?
Yep.
Thank goodness for my roommate, who had the patience to stay. I left, and Angela shared her meal (salad and fries) with me, after waiting 30 minutes for that order herself.
It's a shame that a basically nice hotel can have such a split personality when it comes to the restaurant. I spoke to the hotel management, who told me that the restaurant isn't owned by the same people who own the hotel. I also spoke to the restaurant's morning manager, who was (as always) very nice. Everyone explained that no one had complained before. Seriously? No one? Not even the person I'd seen complaining on Friday?
Here's the thing, Radisson: I plan to make sure that I post a link to this comment on a lot of travel rating websites. That old rule about customer service applies to me, too. Do well, and I'll tell at least ten people. Do poorly, and I'll make sure to tell many more people.
Friday, November 26, 2010
A fresh take on voting on Dancing With The Stars
I love DWTS, and I always have. (I was able to go to a semi-final one year, thanks to my buddy Arnold Peter, who represents BBC America, among other clients). And thanks to my buddy Jack Ayer, I can forward to you this NYT essay on how the voting really works (see here).
Isn't it nice to understand arithmetic sometimes?
Isn't it nice to understand arithmetic sometimes?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Best insurance agent--ever.
Recently, I had to make an insurance claim, and our agent, Perry Olson, did an exceptional job of dealing with some sticky issues of customer service (problems with a third-party appraiser). We've had some good insurance agents before, but I have never seen customer service like Perry's. He's wonderful!
Happy 235th birthday, Marines!
How many organizations do you know where you can count on the steadfastness of an entire group? Where every member is trained to think of the honor of the members who came before him? Where every member is trained to roll up his sleeves, "embrace the suck," and get the work done?
I know of one.
Happy birthday, Marines!
I know of one.
Happy birthday, Marines!
Monday, November 01, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Stop it. Stop demonizing the other side.
It's a few days until Election Day, and I'm already cranky: every time our home phone rings (a sure sign that the caller doesn't know us--our friends use our cell phone numbers to reach us), I've been answering it with "if this is a political call, please hang up now." I'm tired of being asked for whom I've voted.
But I'm far more tired of hearing both political parties call each other names. I'm not "stupid" if I vote for someone you detest. You're not stupid for voting for someone I detest. We should realize that smart, goodhearted people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Demonizing people for their thoughts is a bad way to go, and it betrays the foundations on which our country was founded. Cut it out.
But I'm far more tired of hearing both political parties call each other names. I'm not "stupid" if I vote for someone you detest. You're not stupid for voting for someone I detest. We should realize that smart, goodhearted people can disagree without being disagreeable.
Demonizing people for their thoughts is a bad way to go, and it betrays the foundations on which our country was founded. Cut it out.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The New Yorker: GREAT magazine; HORRIBLE web customer service.
I keep trying to fix a login problem at The New Yorker's website. The site now keeps putting me into infinite loop. I love the articles in this magazine, but I cannot abide the lack of useful help that the website provides when there are login problems.
AARGH!
AARGH!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
That McGowan-Burk article I mentioned is highlighted in the latest ABA Journal.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Thanks, Hank's!
We just got back home after a wonderful dinner at Hank's. Delicious food, attentive staff, and a lovely surprise dessert. All in all, a great evening. Thanks, Hank's!
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
For those of you who like law review irony.
See here. I especially liked the section on the right to bare claws, although the part about herd derivative suits was also classic.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Saturday, October 02, 2010
New "good read" article.
My buddy Bernie Burk and his co-author, David McGowan, have just posted an article on SSRN (here): Big But Brittle: Economic Perspectives on the Future of the Law Firm in the New Economy. It's going to be published in the Columbia Business Law Review.
I've read the piece (of course), and I think that Bernie and David make some really important points about how BigLaw firms are likely to evolve.
Here's the abstract:
I've read the piece (of course), and I think that Bernie and David make some really important points about how BigLaw firms are likely to evolve.
Here's the abstract:
This Article addresses the deceptively simple questions why, up to the onset of the recent recession, law firms continued to grow at the rapid rate and in the unusual configuration that they have exhibited for over 40 years; and whether lawyers, clients, law students and law schools should expect familiar trends to reassert themselves as the economy improves. We show that the copious academic theorizing addressing these questions (focusing on such notions as diversification, asset specificity, “tournament” theory, and reputational and agency-cost concerns at the level of the firm as a whole) has proved ineffective at explaining or predicting actual events to date, and thus offers little guidance for the future.Don't take their (or my) word for it. Read it for yourself.
We suggest two perspectives that appear more consistent with the available empirical evidence, and thus more likely to predict future trends. The first perspective shows that the core members of a professional service firm can mutually increase the value of one another’s connections and reputation in a manner that can increase the mutual gain with the size of the core group, and thus stimulate firm growth and help bind the firm together – though only somewhat loosely – as it grows. This perspective is new to the literature on law-firm economics, and helps explain why law firms have long continued to get larger despite ordinary diseconomies of scale, though with a certain brittleness reflected in the lateral mobility common in this day and age. The second perspective brings long-established economic principles concerning technological innovation and transaction costs to bear in the context of the elite law firm, where they have been largely overlooked in the commentary to date. We argue that reductions in particular transaction costs and in the cost of certain key inputs are helpful in explaining a number of the trends in the staffing and pricing of legal services documented in recent years.
We apply these perspectives to derive a range of predictions for law firms and law schools in the years to come. We conclude that, despite rumors of the “Death of Big Law,” the large firm is here to stay, but in an evolving configuration with profound implications for practicing and aspiring lawyers, as well as the law schools that prepare them for the increasingly competitive and increasingly global markets for their services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)