The Gooses' Quill

Each morning during my 30 minute commute, I listen to both the local NPR and Fox News affiliates alternating between stations equally. After 20 years of listen to both broadcasts, I've notice something disturbing: The NPR news is dumbing down.

I first started listening, the level of perceived education for Fox was AP High School level communications; while the NPR communicated required Bachelor degree and 20 years in the workforce. One was comfortable if you took advanced AP or graduated with a Bachelor's. If not, you were forced to improve your comprehension to digest their stories. And I enjoyed being challenged as this made me a better consumer of news.


Now when I listen, it hurts my head after 10 minutes.


It appears Fox stepped down to High School Senior communication. That does not surprise me. The shift was was not radically or sudden, it was gradual without losing the message. Credit to their management, now they have both young and mature listeners.


What does surprise me is appeared dumbing of NPR, turning the morning news and analysis into the Children's hour. For the past 2 years, the presenters have been 21-fresh-faced, vocal-fry, communicating at an Undergrad Junior-year casual level. It's as if the management turned to a Harvard MBA research project and SAG-AFTRA to find a new audience (NOTE, NPR presenters are members of SAG-AFTRA).

This may encourage new progressive listeners, but to me, it appears to alienate mature, educated and seasoned listeners. In the end, as the old adage states, "gray in the hair, green in the bank"; something a MBA project cannot predict accurately. (NOTE, I hold an MBA; marketing is a combination of squishy math and quasi-psychology).

This year to NPR's credit, the adults in the room have taken back the microphone. But in doing so, have compromised with the children. Gone are the lucid and educated stories replaced by soft-ball styled emotional vignettes to tug at newly-minted-Bachelors-with-zero-experience heart strings.

Now my listening habits in the morning tend to linger on Fox longer for news, then later disseminate.

Last week I walked away from a corner office position.

Walked.

Away.

Some family and friends were shocked. Some applauded the move.

In 20 years in the law I have seen many changes.
Some very positive, like improving efficiency and capturing more costs.
Some concerning, less ethical practice and more gamesmanship.

But the main reason why I am leaving is this: It is profession that has become more business like.

This may seem like sour grapes post, it is not. I want to impart information necessary for you to evaluate if you are truly ready to take on this professional trajectory

And it is not directed toward would-be attorneys.
THIS IS DIRECTED TOWWARD WOULD-BE PARALEGALS

First of all, please read the Book, "The Betrayed Profession: Lawyering at the end of the Twentieth Century" by Sol Linowitz. It's dry, can be pompous and often self serving. Like many of the attorneys you will meet. But his message is more powerful today than it was in 1999. You'll have a glimpse in to what was the Practice of Law at the highest level; mostly before 1980. With Mr. Linowitz's ideal practice is a warning he keeps hammering the point throughout the book; that Law is a unique business and should not be confused with a business dedicated to commerce. Emphasis added.

Today's law practice has incorporated aspects of commerce into their business models (even a term stolen acquired from commerce). Not all the positives benefits of commerce were acquired such as promotion of non-lawyers to higher levels; such as clerk to Secretary to Paralegal.

Mostly, the negatives were acquired by hostile takeover. Even by the most respected firms with stellar ethical reputations are prone to adaption of these acquired traits.

For example, you will be required to perform the tasks of three people without redress or comments for assistance. This is becoming more common, even in AMLAW firms.

You will see lawyers padding their billing, which often leads to the Paralegal under pression to pad his or her time.

You will see skullduggery from attorneys, like planting Malware into evidence provided to the opposing party and unfortunately you will know about it. But cannot remedy.

And you will see the endless greed. More cases or bring more attorney's to make rain without consideration of staffing or resources, as more and more cases are being accepted. This means you will be required to perform extra tasks off books get a project complete. Stay late, work late from home or work weekends. And be required to bill more, and more and more. For example, satisfactory billing for me as a junior was 103 hours a month in 2019. Last year (2022 and still a junior) that increased to 130. This year as a Senior its 150. Which is fine and good, but you can only bill at that level for so long. Until your body gives out.

This is my perspective. Read other posts-articles-journals and decide for yourself
If you can handle this, go forth.

But my recommendation is this: Don't do it.

Tomorrow is Labor Day in the United States. Unlike the rest of the world which celebrates May Day, we wait until the very end of summer and we don't give those who truly deserve a rest a holiday.

Can we in honesty say this is a rest from our labor when our fellow citizens do not?

As I read the various blogs, journals and tweets I notice there is a curious dichotomy that spans countries, cultures and languages: Hope and despair.

The despair is fairly simple to find, the feelings after a long holiday season of such bright lights, giving and feasting; or the lack thereof. The theme of hope is more subtle.

In all the feeds I have read so far, some of the subtle themes for hope are:
Hope that the winter will end and spring will bloom;
Hope that life and prosperity will become greater than the previous year;
Hope that a better life and direction will transpire in the coming year;
Hope that the meaning of the particular holiday you celebrate will have a deeper or more profound meaning;


Some may even have far flung hopes of:
Universal peace, brotherhood or fraternity will break out;
or, some disease will hopefully cured in our lifetime;
or sense and reasoning will suddenly come to our politicians and justice in pure tranquility become reality.


However, what is never written, but present in the undercurrent of the writings is this:
Hope that pressures of life will ease;
Hope of food on the table;
Hope that our relatives and family not irritate us;
Hope our employment will remain in tact;
or in the alternative, a better situation becomes reality;
Hope that in our advocations and hobbies, we find a small modicum of peace.


None of these hopes are new, in fact you only have to look to the Hanukkah blessing:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,
Who has sanctified us with His commandments
and commanded us to kindle the hanukkah candle.

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,
Who performed miracles for our ancestors in those days at this time.
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,
Who has kept us alive, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this moment.

Or to look to the latin hymn:
Veni, veni O Oriens,
solare nos adveniens,
noctis depelle nebulas,
dirasque mortis tenebras.

Veni, veni, Rex Gentium,
veni, Redemptor omnium,
ut salvas tuos famulos
peccati sibi conscios.

O come, Thou Dayspring from on high,
and cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
disperse the gloomy clouds of night
and death's dark shadow put to flight.

O come, Desire of the nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind;
bid every strife and quarrel cease
and fill the world with heaven's peace.

This is the reason we have such hope, the underlying theme of the Holidays are hope. To remind us to dare to hope, to keep our hopes alive and sustain our hopefulness until the next year, in the deep of winter when our hope seems lowest.

o'n!

There’s been a lot of talk about Justice lately. From dear friends seeking Justice over the debasers and fools whom are directly responsible for the ills of the world, or at least Just power & means to correct the matter once and for all. And what about a Government declaring that Justice was served in the death of man. Or the citizens of Syria or Libya wanting a Just and free society from their Leaders which exercise Justice in a swift and sure manor.

In all the rhetoric about Justice, I wondered if anyone, Citizen, Subject, or State, understands what the word Justice really means? And if you really knew the meaning, would you honestly want to seek Justice on another?


The concept for Justice comes from Roman Law or Jus, meaning to have, "Power, Privilege, or Capacity (of control) over another Person…."
Think about this for a moment, the Power over another person’s life; their person, property, or family. How would you exercise such power?


Would you conjure Jus abutendi or the right to exercise power in any manner you see fit? Having your way through unrestricted and limitless force. Even with the noblest of intentions, could you wield such power and not declare jus dicere - "I AM the hand of God!" - That you are correct to exact power and dominion over those whom you declare beyond the pale. Isn't that called Retribution?

Or would you strive for Jus naturale, or to exercise power in positive governess in A communi observantia non est recendendum from the common rules for all, there shall be no departure.
Not seeking your way only, but acting for all to benefit. Striving for others to follow Jus ex injuria non oritur, if they seek to change an ill or want in unity; for good cannot rise out of doing harm . And, unselfishly, allowing for the possibility of losing today even with the noblest of intentions, so that all will gain tomorrow. So that you, in the end, become self-enlightened.

Which do you choose?

For little effort and great return, social media like LinkedIn or Twitter has become a boom for networking people for business, such as potential customers; or propounding the latest Business theory or consultant-life-business-spiritual coaches pet pitch to a broad audience.

Which can be like a coin toss for information:

One the one sides....
I have enjoyed meeting a host of professionals whom I have had great discussions (or called, politely, fools). And have found interesting leads on new opportunities - which is really great.

On the flip side of this coin....
I am overwhelmed by every pundit propounding pundit-ity prolifically - that is more Gurus Consultants and Coaches speaking their message to a broader, global audience.

To the point your neurons feel like screaming "overload, overload, please log off your brain!"

What seems to be missing between the deal-making and the message pundit-ity is reflection.
Has someone really fact-checked the info the Consultant is pitching?
Is that information really useful?
Or, before you speak, have you really though about the ramifications of your message?

Perhaps this is the meaning of media, to cause you to think - then react.

It may be old-fashioned, antiquated, and perhaps not attuned to modern mores, but it is still quite apropos to invoke the ancient salutation on this day of "MERRY CHRISTMAS".

To one, and to all.

Was reading an amusing and somewhat disterubing article from the Ecnomist on both the glut of US Ph.D's and, in some instances, the dumbing down of the research to be confirmed a Ph.D.; and the aritcle suggests, broadly, this may be an entry level posistion with little to no tangleble benifit.

Strange, Dr. Lawrance J. Peter suggested this event happening in 1966. Originally possed by the press and the publishers as humor. I would sumize the joke is on us.

Have you ever wondered why there is such discontentment in employment? Even today when employment rates globally are at historic high levels, there are employees whom dream of nothing but walking out on their employment situation and bid their tyrannical overload superior a short and acetic adu. Here is a rather funny but quite sad example.

A colleague of mine at the Law Firm of Armand Legg(*) regaled me with a story about how she was appointed by her section to be on the United Way Committee and what happened during the “kick off” meeting; which is the initial planning meeting for the fundraising events.

For those of you who don’t know A) what the United Way is; and B) Why it’s not a good thing; let me explain. First, the United Way is an umbrella organization which raises monies for community based social services. Laudable and noble in its’ efforts. But, those whom are assigned to be on the United Way Committee usually must entice and cajole their colleagues into giving money or organizing events which will produce organizational giving. Normally not a post of honor – like a used car salesperson to an unsuspecting customer.

But, I digress.

My colleague began her tale with the normal chaos associated with a luncheon meeting, finding the line, selecting a plate, serving your selections. No one really wanted to be there, and the lunch provided was really a Pro Forma to foster a sense of camaraderie before the drudgery began.
Then she said something odd and amazing, she said that Attorneys and Secretaries began re-arraigning the chafing dishes, the office administrator instead of directing the staff person who set up the room to bring more tables and chairs, began without a word to change the set up. And the staff person whom was in charge of setting up was left standing bewilderment.

This struck me as odd; I thought, why would you do this during the luncheon? Why not ask the staff person to change if something was not working or had planned in advance to change on the fly?
If this were the only indicator of something not quite right, it would be enough for any business consultant to zero in on the mechanics of leadership and what was missing from the equation.

But it was not.

What happened next was the truest indicator of something rather wrong with the structure under the veneer of paneling. She said, many of the secretaries and staff members began voicing discontent over a proposed change in the buy-in where you can purchase for a monthly donation the opportunity to wear casual clothing on Friday. A lot of resentment poured into the room from this discussion; such as why did the Attorneys win all the raffles and never the staff; why the bidding during the auction, the largest fundraising event during the United Way compaign, traditionally exceeded most staff members budges within the first 15 seconds of bidding? And most galling for the staff was why during the United Way campaign only fraction of the Attorneys participated and nearly all of the staff contributed the work?



These were only the tip of what was disclosed by my friend’s story; there was much more.
But I think you can see the point - that there are some management employer relation issues boiling over. Anyone who has serviced under Arms understands what was wrong; anyone who has worked for a Sigma 6 company knows; or anyone who has worked for a fantastic core-competency company knows what was wrong. And before my conservative friends can make the argument that the Attorneys generate all the revenue, are entitled to the perks, and therefore should make the rules; let me say this, what are the rules the Attorneys are making and are those rules and expectations clearly expressed in writing and in action to the staff? If those rules and expectations exist, why were they not clearly communicated in coaching and in action? And lastly, why did they interfere instead of letting the staff DO THEIR JOB?

Employees want to be lead; want to know where their leaders are taking them; desire to know what exactly their jobs are and what is needed to do the job; and want to perform the job with the leeway to make corrections if something does not work.

It does not happen overnight, and it does not happen without all of management agreeing on a common shared goal. It takes time and long-term commitments.

For example, written job duties and do they clearly note what is going to happen without any vague language. In those duties, clearly write out what is expected from the staff to encourage optimal performance, and what intrinsic rewards can the staff expect (such as public recognition of their efforts, or a thank you note or card, or just someone saying, “You did a great job”).
Using the luncheon as an example, what were the exact duties for setting up a luncheon and did they have a clear understanding of what could happen if more people showed up (or should they be permitted to show up if the rules were not clearly noted to reply by such a time or don’t come by). From my colleague’s story, it appears none of these questions were asked or written out before the luncheon.

Another point here was why wasn’t the staff people asked to make changes? By doing the re-arranging themselves, they clearly communicated to staff that their actions were not welcomed, wanted, appreciated, or they had the skill to correct the situation. Simple ask bring in more chairs, tables, and serving ware to accommodate the additional people. And if the chafing dishes were not accessible, ask the staff to make the change; that’s what the staff is there for, to ensure the event was correct. In short, HANDS OFF; use your words. Another way to have handled this situation was to advise in advance that some changes may be required at the last minute and they should have the leeway to make changes and corrections as needed; in short, if they see more people than was arranged, let them make the decision to add more and back their decisions with encourage for taking initiative.

Now, not every Law firm will adhere to the principals of leadership. Some will continue to manage as does Armand Legg. But, some will take the lead in the 21st century and focus on more leadership – definition, expectations, and initiative. And those will be the firms to watch out for.
In the meantime, I gave my colleague the name of a great head-hunter.

* = Armand Legg is not a real firm.

Recently, I was in a discussion regarding justice and likability; and it's easy to take the populists view of judges in the United States. But to you, the discerning reader, I'd like to offer this thought.

We can agree or disagree with any decision, case, or reasoning a sitting judge renders; that cannot be separated from the human experience. Sometimes, the judge associated with that particular rendering is either vilified or canonized in the process; which is also a part of the human experience.

But, when we attach direct affection or animosity toward a sitting judge no matter what that judge renders, we have a situation of unimaginable horror for any citizen to contemplate.

For we as citizens’ loss the appearance & application of justice as blind, based solely on the stronger argument and reasoning with adherence to strict rules of order; not based on popular sentiment or popular ire to rules based on flights of fancy.

And that truly is a chilling thought.