who cares?

God is punishing Jenner and Block for Lawrence v. Texas (J&B Pro bono case legalizing homosexuality).

Inflation ate my equity... JB was supposed to be the antithesis of Kirkland and Sidley -- a better place to work.

J&B is a toilet firm. Some partners do deserve de-equitization though. Lazy slobs.

Live by litigation; die by litigation. Tort reform is killing these quasi-leaches. Securities litigation is especially tough to do now, and these guys are big into that.

Is there some biglaw partner blog where partners bitch/moan/worry about this kind of stuff?

how do these partnerships work? a majority can vote you out?

must suck on a personal level to be backstabbed like that.

11:09, "Antithesis"? Why, because of J & B's happy hour Fridays?

Among the top tier offices in Chi, Sidley is a "better" place to work because of the quality of its practice and its relatively cordial, civilized (some might say friendly, bookish) culture. Kirkland is a "better" place because of the quality of its practice and its superior bonuses. And outside of Chi (e.g., DC, NY, London, etc.), which would be "better," Sidley and Kirkland, or J & B?

11:25--

Jenner's DC appellate practice. Easy answer.

Kirkland, Jenner, Sidley, Mayer Brown = all cesspools to work for.

If you want a firm that isn't completely brutal, look at firms like Chapman & Cutler, Schiff Hardin, etc. Of course, that would require you to look beyong the V20, or wherever those firms fall into on the magical "Vault" prestige list.

Mayer Brown is in a whole other league of shit, possibly only shared with CWT.

Partners in general better watch out for the Gen Y raptors they are cultivating in the associate ranks. I suppose the boomers figure they'll be "of counsel" or dead by the time that changeover happens, but the inter-generational people are going to learn a few more things about "eat what you kill" and wish for the time when firms were a little bit more genteel and at least pretended to take care of you.

Mayer Brown is in a whole other league of shit, possibly only shared with CWT.

Partners in general better watch out for the Gen Y raptors they are cultivating in the associate ranks. I suppose the boomers figure they'll be "of counsel" or dead by the time that changeover happens, but the inter-generational people are going to learn a few more things about "eat what you kill" and wish for the time when firms were a little bit more genteel and at least pretended to take care of you.

"Cesspools." That's a good one 11:30 (2). Two questions:

1) Do you think the powers-that-be at Chapman, Schiff, etc. would let associates or partners under-bill (i.e., under their attractively lower billable requirements) for very long?

2) When it comes to lateral hires, do you think that the powers-that-be at Chapman, Schiff, etc. view mid-to-senior level associates from Kirkland, Jenner, Sidley, MB unfavorably?

Too many Jenner PAC donations to Cuban and Venezuelan elections?

Mayer Brown is a in a whole different pool of shit...

In the UK they have to publish their partnership accounts and they show how bad things are for the firm (even in a booming city like London)...

http://www.legalweek.com/Articles/1103666/Mayer+Brown+in+Euro+profits+dip.html

PPP down 10%, PEP down 18% and the list goes on.

Associates will be happy to know that one of the reasons for profits dipping is the big fat pay checks they have to pay people to stay at a TTT.

how do people think this will affect the DC office?

@11:25,

Management Committee voted to be agent & manager for the partnership

It's leech, damn it, leech! Toxins leach into our water supply. Leeches attach to your body and suck blood.

Geez.

Won't affect the DC office - that office is thriving and none of the partners were deequitized there or even at risk.

Resp. to 11:52

1. Partners at Chapman and Schiff aren't expected to have $1.5-$2 million dollar books of business, such as firms like Jenner. Associates at Chapman and Schiff are expected to bill 2000 - no more, no less, and if they are quality attorneys, more likely than not they can reach partner.

2. Laterals from firms like Kirkland are attractive, but will be subordinate to home grown lawyers unless the new lawyers are (a) much better than peers in their class year or (b) have a book of business. All things being equal, laterals lose. That's why it is best to get it right the first time around.

Resp. to 11:52

1. Partners at Chapman and Schiff aren't expected to have $1.5-$2 million dollar books of business, such as firms like Jenner. Associates at Chapman and Schiff are expected to bill 2000 - no more, no less, and if they are quality attorneys, more likely than not they can reach partner.

2. Laterals from firms like Kirkland are attractive, but will be subordinate to home grown lawyers unless the new lawyers are (a) much better than peers in their class year or (b) have a book of business. All things being equal, laterals lose. That's why it is best to get it right the first time around.

didn't Jenner used to have a Dallas office? did that get slashed as well?

Not 11:30 (2), based on your logic, the laterals (whom I know) FROM the likes of Schiff who now work AT the likes of Kirkland and Sidley must really be struggling.

The thing is, they're not.

Five mid-level litigation associations at Fulbright's NY office got laid off last week. Firm meeting explained they were underperformers...

3:03 - they may be doing fine. I'm sure they are getting work, getting paid, having "fun", etc. That wasn't my point. As an empirical matter, except for firms like Skadden and CWT, most firms prefer to promote those who were at the firm from the beginning. Sure there are exceptions - if a lateral from Sidley is easily the top litigation prospect in a particular class year and there is a need to promote a litigator to partner, then the ex-Sidley guy gets the bounce. However, the expectations are higher for laterals. This is nothing profound nor original - it is just the facts of law firm life.

Most firms prefer to promote internally because someone who has put up with all of the firm BS and still works there and is still highly productive probably bleeds the firm colors.

Why do you think that law firms, like the Marines, prefer young people who haven't yet molded an identity.

Laterals, on the other hand, well, they already jumped ship once and empherical data supports that they tend to be a good deal less loyal, with attrition rates higher than home grown associates.

If someone is a superstar, particularly in a field that is more of an art than a mechanic, well, yeah, all bets are off.

Jenner's new chairman and managing partner are out of control. They are firing good partners as they please without discussing it with the partnership. Partners have to learn of the firings in the paper because the cowards who have seized control will not talk about their unilateral decisions. Meanwhile, the management and policy committee members give themselves huge raises (point increases) while they fire good partners in order the increase each year's point value and their own bank accounts. Good lawyers are being fired so these jerks can get rich in the short-run with NO regard for the longterm profitability, health or morale of the firm. Jenner has become a horrible place and without a major change in control, it will only get worse. And one more thing -- contrary to what the chairman told the press, Jenner NEVER fired partners prior to 2007. This is NOT business as usual.

2:01 - I am sorry that you couldn't pull your weight and were let go.

The Real Truth (post above) is correct. You are not safe at Jenner unless you're lucky enough to have a loyal friend on the management or the policy committee. There is NO formal review process of partners in connection with the firings. It goes down like this: Greg G. draws up a list based on his own biases and preferences. He does not even know half of the partners. The management committee (the members of which are hand chosen by none other than Greg) then proceeds to bless the list. Valukas and his buddies on the small policy committee then adopt the list, maybe making some small adjustments and backroom deals to save one or two partners who have a friend begging a member of the committee to save him/her. Then Greg just walks around in a happy fluster, firing people and destroying lives. The best part is that all of Jenner's partners are too afraid to speak out against the firing and management has made it clear that insubordination, and indeed, even questions, will NOT be tolerated. If you ask "who" or "why", then you too have to worry about being let go. Neither Greg nor Valukas will speak to the partners about the firings, and in fact they will not even inform the partnership about the firings. That stands in sharp contrast to how they both love to run to the press and discuss the firings as something that always has been done at Jenner. However, if you speak to any Jenner partner, you will be told that the firings started in 2007 and they all are in contravention of the partnership agreement. All Jenner needs is ONE partner to stand up and say "this is bullshit" and there will be a full-scale civil war at that place. The mood at Jenner is tense and uncomfortable. Nobody is happy except those voting themselves massive raises while they fire truly productive partners. Management is self-interested and feels absolutely NO obligation to the partnership as a whole. Equity partners are treated with less respect than the staff and associates and equity partners are kept completely uninformed about every single aspect of firm management. The place is a dictatorship and it is miserable.

To the Real Truth and Valukas' Butler:

I can confirm what both of you say. There were secret terminations at Jenner before 2007, but only of associates, never of partners. For the most part, the secret firings were so secret that one person could destroy an associate's career. The associate would be gone and none of his or her co-workers would even be aware of it.

It is also true that no partner will stand up to protest the mistreatment of another human being, whether at partner or associate level. Noone, and to my shame, I include myself, ever protests the way legal support staff and IT staff get treated Everyone has and does "go with the flow" until now maybe the flow has a steep waterfall ahead. Most, if not all, of "the Unnamed Ten" did not deserve de-equitization or job loss. They have done quality legal work and also played major roles in keeping the firm going day to, without the prestige and power of the Policy or Managment Committees. Their present situation is a trgedy and a travesty. My only bitter thought is that if they had earlier stood up for the rights of others, their own rights could not be strped from them now.

To the Real Truth and Valukas' Butler:

I can confirm what both of you say. There were secret terminations at Jenner before 2007, but only of associates, never of partners. For the most part, the secret firings were so secret that one person could destroy an associate's career. The associate would be gone and none of his or her co-workers would even be aware of it.

It is also true that no partner will stand up to protest the mistreatment of another human being, whether at partner or associate level. Noone, and to my shame, I include myself, ever protests the way legal support staff and IT staff get treated. Everyone has and does "go with the flow" until now maybe the flow has a steep waterfall ahead. Most, if not all, of "the Unnamed Ten" did not deserve de-equitization or job loss. They have done quality legal work and also played major roles in keeping the firm going day to day, without the prestige and power of the Policy or Managment Committees. Their present situation is a tragedy and a travesty. My bitterest thought is that if they had earlier stood up for the rights of others, their own rights could not be stripped from them now.

J & B hosted its monthly partner meeting the other day and as usual Orwellian control of the agenda played out. Our favorite in house errand boy – Mr. Greg - proclaimed ‘a whole lot of nothing’. Meanwhile – the standing room only equity partners brayed like the obsequious sheep that they seem to be. The straight - from the podium- pronouncements – addressing nothing in particular - went down like 100% grease sliders.

‘Apolegia’ is now an art form substitute for the Jenner’s “slash and burn” management ‘philosophy’.

Today’s - Wednesday March 12 SPEECH of SPEECHES went something like this. . .

CHIEF ERRAND BOY MR GREG:
QUOTE
Ummm “Ladies and Gentlemen” of J & B - we are embarking on a New Deal. Yes!!! we – the firm - are now to be constituted only by ‘elite attorneys’. We have NO use for the bottom 40%.. Jenner no longer will countenance bottom feeding lawyers. So we – your friendly Management Committee - ‘respectfully’ ask all attorneys attending today – I mean those who find themselves ‘below average’ here at Jenner - to please LEAVE - before we have to fire you. And we would ask your forbearance in these sensitive matters since the ribald era of Dionysian ethos is now behind us - pro bono is now declasse’.

We welcome, henceforth, the Apollonian calm of excellence. Jenner & Block now has room only for those elite few who rank in the upper 3rd standard deviation.. We want only SIX SIGMA lawyers. Hereafter we wish to advertise to all our clients that J&B will deploy only ‘sycophantic Six Sigma semiotic sextants’ to ply our trade.

For those of you – here today - who are NOT of this genus and species: fighting ‘rainmaking’ SIX SIGMA CENTAURS - may I remind you of your imminent short term tenure at J & B.

If you are confused as to who you are in this classification scheme - allow me to remind you. . .
You- who sit silently at your tables this afternoon - belong in the animal kingdom and of the order “Ungulata”
And indeed in the suborder Artiodactyla.
You all belong to the common family called “Bovidae” and the sub-family called “Caprinac”.
Well – truth be told – most of you today at this Partner Meeting should call yourselves using proper naming protocol -‘genus – species’ OVIS ARIES.

Or for those who are not familiar with zoology and scientific naming – You are all OVIS ARIES =DOMESTICATED SHEEP.
AMEN and AMEN
.

Classification Scientific Name Common Terminology
Kingdom Animalia animal
Phylum Cordata vertebrates
Class Mammalia suckle young
Order Ungulata hoofed mammals
Sub Order Artiodactyla even toed Ungulata
Section Pecora typical ruminants
Family Bovidae hollow horned ruminants
Subfamily Caprinac sheep and goats
Genus Ovis sheep
Species Ovis Aries domesticated sheep

In Search of EXIT

For the J & B equity partners who are still standing - or as the more typical case – still sitting down while taking the drivel rolling out of the Policy Committee – please do not take umbrage at being called domesticated sheep. There are good theoretical reasons for being docile and diffident while corporate fairness is being trampled. I naturally refer to Albert Hirschmann’s apropos book

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
By Albert O. Hirschman
Ok here’s the deal.
.Albert O. Hirschman makes a basic distinction between alternative ways of reacting to deterioration in business firms and, in general, to dissatisfaction with organizations:
one-exit-is for the member to quit the organization or for the customer to switch to the competing product, and the
other-voice-is for members or customers to agitate and exert influence for change "from within."
Firms that are made up of equity partners - that is, people with a vested interests in corporate outcomes – stakeholders – may have a hierarchical leadership structure where high level decision making is simply off loaded to an esteemed group of thinkers – Such an elite cadre are – theoretically - to deliberate and then seek consensus from the rank and file partner owners. This would be a kind of separated power structure using ‘advice and consent’ functions.

Where is the feedback that J &B Management Committee needs? Feedback is a resource that would help orient itself to terra firma and temper its oligarchic tendencies. Its – THE Committee’s - nefarious proclivity is currently and amply manifested these days by our good friend Mr Greg who goes his merry way flying chaotically about the mahogonied walls of Jenner, while taking Machiavellian turns and going for ‘screw your buddy’ ricochets.

Now then. . .how does one react to corporate deterioration? Voice? Or Exit? It would be most disingenuous to place Hirschmann;s 3rd category - ‘loyalty’ into play. Which gives me pause . . .how many loyal partisan fighters remain at Jenner – at least those who react with titillation when assigned a pro bono case?? How many full equity partners swell with pride when their Committee chairmen take home over $4 million - I refer to J & B’s TITAN class - those who wish to transmogrify the firm into an elite fighting machine.
Yes – they- the firm’s MEISTERSINGER - are on the look out for a “Few Good Men” willing to take the Jenner Loyalty Oath and march to the shores of Tripoli.

Not many soldiers or good Marines left at Jenner. Which leaves us with Voice??? Or Exit?

Voice is reserved for those who will agitate from within in order to set ‘wrongs’ right.
However, there just does not seem to be a podium for people in the firm who wish to exercise voice or more aptly have the courage to ‘speak (up)’ Meeting after meeting – the pall of abuse hangs heavy in the air – and Jenner’s growing crowd of Ovis Aries nods with assent.

Well then – how about ‘exit’? This is called ‘quitting’ the organization. Here one gets to vote with feet - assuming the actor is mobile and not transfixed or paralyzed with ‘fear of firing”. Ovis aries – in any case – are doomed - either to be devoured by power hungry predators clamoring on the 40th floor for more red meat or to proceed sheepishly to the requisite stalls for the yearly shearing.

A couple of exiting maverick Ovis aries might do us all some good.
And the show of ‘exit’ would make the dearly departed Neville Chamberlain proud.

Major Chicago Law Firm Hijacked

Chicago, Illinois - Monday, March 17, 2008 – AP. Shortly after take off of the Jenner & Block Flight 93 from Chicago Il destined to Shanksville, PA alarming reports were heard from the airplane’s cockpit to flight controllers on the ground at O’hare airport. A clandestine group known as the “Valukas Five”- after they had overpowered the officially registered cockpit crew- indicated in clear English that the hijacking was merely a normal operational variant and that there was no need for alarm. Jenner & Block’s flight plans previously registered called for normal and rational growth plans during the turbulent years of 2008 through 2010. The firm’s flight had historically organized around ‘rainmaking clusters’ – that is, centers of excellence that specialized in certain form of law. This organizational construct though proved insufficient to insulate the firm from turbulent down drafts in the economy. By late 2007, terrorist cells had formed and ensconced themselves in each floor of the J&B IBM building home base. Terrorist leaders – identified as “Mr. Greg” and “Mr. Craig -The Martian” – were heard over the flight 93 communication system connected to ground control as saying that the ‘J& B old guard’ had been duly sacrificed. These so called ‘Valukas Five’ leaders indicated that survival in the current American economy was impossible without a ‘grassroots revolution’ wherein the old J&B guard would be forced to step down. In fact pilots of J&B flight 93 have been apparently adroitly exterminated – indeed, prior to the flight’s departure. Communication from the cockpit was spotty over the first hours of this terror flight.

When former deposed equity partners of J & B were called on to negotiate with the hijackers, there was notable reluctance to acknowledge the accomplishments of these former esteemed rainmaking old guard. Cockpit terrorists regressed into rage and rant.

“ We do not tolerate maudlin sentiment for the good ole days. We are steering this firm into a new reality. We will not stand by as the firms vitality is dissipated by flabby non productive equity partners who are inured sucking on the golden tit of pro bono blather.”

Mr Craig – The Martian – professed that one of the new pilots had taken the left sided pilot seat - as a symbolic sop to the old guard. This female terrorist called herself “Susan - the Levitator.
When asked to speak to the negotiating ground team, Levitator Susan demurred and told her interlocutors to read the Chicago Tribune for further developments. Associated Press has learned that the grand old Chicago Law Firm J&B had been immersed in a rather turbulent and truculent leadership shake up over the past several months and that those pursuing radical reform in leadership reconstitution were inclined to impose solution by fiat and terror.

Associated Press has also learned that J&B flight 93 passengers have been in cell phone communication to officials at IBM floor 40. Most of these unfortunates have expressed intense fear and overwhelming anxiety. Furthermore, most passengers have apparently been diffident to the terrorists and have not opted any type of counter-coup attempts to regain control of J &B flight 93– a reference to the widely known folklore originating from this ill fated flight’s names sake – ‘United flight 93’. Yes. . in that heroic instance passenger Beamer's last audible words were "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."

Beamer was one of the passengers that tried to retake the aircraft from the terrorists, with the intent of thwarting the terrorists' potential to use the aircraft as a weapon to kill civilians in Washington DC or elsewhere. Sadly there is no such repeat heroism aboard J&B flight 93. The only thing heard from the first class passengers in rows 1 to 8 – the super EQUITY partners with thousand of points and hopes of making millions by next December 31 - was “where are the parachutes?’ ‘we got ta get out ta this place’”

Associated Press finally has learned that certain passengers on J&B 93 have cut deals with the terrorists – called ‘doing deals with the Devil’. In exchange for their continued longevity at the firm, these Greg –the Martian defectors will continue their sycophantic course of extolling the virtues of the new terrorist take over. Cynics meanwhile awaiting the outcome of this hijacking are convinced that these self declared quislings will eventually find themselves on the ‘outs’ with the ‘Valukas Five’ hijackers and will wind up hanging high in front of the Trump Tower on Monday morning for all those loyalists hoping for a Friday paycheck to see.

J&B – A Democracy??? – what a novel idea!!!
My esteemed friend recently wrote in “Apparently, management or a small subset thereof has hijacked the firm and the equity partners have no say in anything”

Urgghhhhhhhhhhhh. THE HORROR!!! THE HORROR!!!

Jenner & Block – a democratic organization??? Such a notion is risible and ridiculous. I wonder how many associates or partners actually believe in that myth.

Hmm – well lets develop that notion - and try on for size that Jenner & Block is a a procedural democracy – namely that 1) citizen - lawyer equality is assumed. Each J & B lawyer has equal standing and equal ‘voice’ in corporate deliberations. 2) elections and voting are the procedures followed so that ‘leadership’ may understand the ‘will of the Jenner people’ and decide accordingly 3) majority rules. When 50% and one person opt for a policy choice management is obliged to implement that preference. And 4) Management is responsive to the wishes of the rank and file lawyers

OK – none of those conditions pertain.

Well how about Jenner & Block as a democratic organization in ‘substance’. Here we would assume that certain key rights accrue to all lawyer members - decent things like
the expectation1) that merit might in the end count for something 2) that management would seek to know how the rank and file lawyers ‘felt’ about issues of leadership and firm direction 3) that continued employment in the firm could be assumed unless honest valid criticism of performance adumbrates a decision of future departure – a decision by consensus 4) that there would be freedom of confusing clandestine side agreements, formation of intra- office cabals and back channel trafficking in management committee positions where leadership seats are swapped in and out like they were chits strewn out on poker table.

Well that does not pertain either.

So – J & B must be organized as an oligarchy. But ordinarily oligarchs are talented – they have to be in order to withstand the challenges of revolutionary subalterns gnawing at their heels. The current suzerain Anton Valukas seems to rule with a cudgel - or what ever other phallic blunt instrument he wishes to show as a mark of his superiority. The new kid on the block Ms Suzy – the Levitator – brings as her cachet - zero legal talent, and zero prior legal accomplishments. So oligarch #2 - Ms Suzy – The Levitator- is the J&B’s Queen of the Zero Sum Game –“ heads I win, tails you loose”.

There has been a lot of squawking about the inability of Jenner & Block partners to parry its Policy Committee’s unwanted thrusts. What is occurring here, however, is a very simple collective action problem. There is simply NO incentive for a single partner to ‘rise up in indignation’ against the hated Policy Committee’s autocratic style. That act – of courage – would be extremely costly and would be paid by a single person. The beneficial outcome – if any should accrue – would be enjoyed by the rank and file – all of whom in their meek hearts acted as rational free-riders. Assuming that all of Jenner’s equity partners are - the typical atomisitic, self-loving, self-maximizers - no acts of heroism can be expected from anybody soon.

The overarching incentive at J & B is indeed to free-ride. There might be – perhaps- a ‘latent’ privileged group – who collectively would value change in Policy Committee decisions. The members of this - albeit clandestine -sub-group may esteem the anticipated collective good – here defined as a radical reconfiguration of Policy Committee - with such intensity so as to be willing to pay substantially more than the idle by-stander. The ‘goods’ this smaller group could hope to gain would be something appreciable – tenure, point increases, appointment to a valued leadership position – and by pursuing such a reward a threshold point is exceeded. And mutatis mutandis - collective action proceeds forth.

Partnership can be a workable institutional form when partner membership is small and, conversely, quite unsuccessful when membership is large. A magic number that could ignite a ‘collective action’ is about 6-7. A guarantee of non-action by the rank and file members occurs when partners number more than 20-30. The current J& B equity partner – 150-200 in number – plainly observes that his/her individual effort – ‘to improve the firm’ - will have a scant and indeed exiguous affect on the performance of J & B enterprise. What incentive is there for the ordinary partner to work for the global welfare of the firm?
Loyalty??? [Belly laugh]

There is none – unless of course the Management Committee has invoked a clever ‘reverse incentive clause’ . To remain on the roster of active J & B partners the average political moribund partner must 1) have suitable ties to key members on Policy or Management Committee or 2) slavishly generate billable hours – part of the Ponzi Scheme of keeping the hoary J & B ‘Rainmakers’ rich. The operative behaviors therefore to watch out for include – 1) treacly cloying interactions with Management Committee members – ie generic ‘sucking-up’ gestures or 2) incessant work – putting in the average 80 hour workweeks in order to keep J & B earning afloat.

Therefore if the above theory proves reliable, J & B partner professional behavior should, predictably, comport with one of two styles – viz. 1) Sycophant – “The Shop Sop” or 2) Work-O- Holic Or “Je dois vraiment revenir à mon saint travail – mon travail sans cesse.”

There has been a lot of squawking about the inability of Jenner & Block partners to parry its Policy Committee’s unwanted thrusts. What is occurring here, however, is a very simple collective action problem. There is simply NO incentive for a single partner to ‘rise up in indignation’ against the hated Policy Committee’s autocratic style. That act – of courage – would be extremely costly and would be paid by a single person. The beneficial outcome – if any should accrue – would be enjoyed by the rank and file – all of whom in their meek hearts acted as rational free-riders. Assuming that all of Jenner’s equity partners are - the typical atomisitic, self-loving, self-maximizers - no acts of heroism can be expected from anybody soon.

The overarching incentive at J & B is indeed to free-ride. There might be – perhaps- a ‘latent’ privileged group – who collectively would value change in Policy Committee decisions. The members of this - albeit clandestine -sub-group may esteem the anticipated collective good – here defined as a radical reconfiguration of Policy Committee - with such intensity so as to be willing to pay substantially more than the idle by-stander. The ‘goods’ this smaller group could hope to gain would be something appreciable – tenure, point increases, appointment to a valued leadership position – and by pursuing such a reward a threshold point is exceeded. And mutatis mutandis - collective action proceeds forth.

Partnership can be a workable institutional form when partner membership is small and, conversely, quite unsuccessful when membership is large. A magic number that could ignite a ‘collective action’ is about 6-7. A guarantee of non-action by the rank and file members occurs when partners number more than 20-30. The current J& B equity partner – 150-200 in number – plainly observes that his/her individual effort – ‘to improve the firm’ - will have a scant and indeed exiguous affect on the performance of J & B enterprise. What incentive is there for the ordinary partner to work for the global welfare of the firm?
Loyalty??? [Belly laugh]

There is none – unless of course the Management Committee has invoked a clever ‘reverse incentive clause’ . To remain on the roster of active J & B partners the average political moribund partner must 1) have suitable ties to key members on Policy or Management Committee or 2) slavishly generate billable hours – part of the Ponzi Scheme of keeping the hoary J & B ‘Rainmakers’ rich. The operative behaviors therefore to watch out for include – 1) treacly cloying interactions with Management Committee members – ie generic ‘sucking-up’ gestures or 2) incessant work – putting in the average 80 hour workweeks in order to keep J & B earning afloat.

Therefore if the above theory proves reliable, J & B partner professional behavior should, predictably, comport with one of two styles – viz. 1) Sycophant – “The Shop Sop” or 2) Work-O- Holic Or “Je dois vraiment revenir à mon saint travail – mon travail sans cesse.”

Partners at Jenner:

Why are you letting Craig and Susan assume control of your firm? They don't deserve it and they don't support the values of Jenner. In fact, a brief review of their histories would prove that many have been stabbed in the back as those two rose to the top. Please partners, I implore you to stop the madness. Craig's myopic focus is on his column and Susan seems very power-hungry. It makes me sick that you are allowing this to happen. Stop it now before it is too late.

Hoffa is wise beyond words.

Jenner is a blood bath. The bloody knives now are being washed, sharpened, and polished for next year's points season and related firings. Who will be next? I can assure you that friends of members of policy and mgmt committees will continue to profit, so all of you ass kissers should prepare to pucker. All of you incompetent, spineless slugs should continue to re-align yourselves by hurting your friends. For those of you with sense, class, and integrity, why don't you try to do something radical like elect a new policy committee. Stop being cowards. The voting is blind and you cannot afford to turn a blind eye anymore.

Jenner is a blood bath. The bloody knives now are being washed, sharpened, and polished for next year's points season and related firings. Who will be next? I can assure you that friends of members of policy and mgmt committees will continue to profit, so all of you ass kissers should prepare to pucker. All of you incompetent, spineless slugs should continue to re-align yourselves by hurting your friends. For those of you with sense, class, and integrity, why don't you try to do something radical like elect a new policy committee. Stop being cowards. The voting is blind and you cannot afford to turn a blind eye anymore.