Firms make the transition to the next generation
December 19, 2007
By Bob Yates
About eight years ago, when Michael Shelist, one of the name partners at Much Shelist, was in his early 60s, he took it upon himself to name a new managing partner.
Unlike the stereotype of the older lawyer who can’t let go, Shelist was ready to give up his power and usher in a new generation of lawyers to continue the firm. He chose David Brown, then only 37, to be the next managing partner of the firm. And the transition of Much Shelist began.
“There has been a change in the practice of law,” Brown said. “Not that long ago, equity partners were able to cut back around 55 and still retain full partnership. That’s no longer the case - equity partners work at least as hard as everyone else. And, about 10 years ago, some of the founding partners didn’t want to work as hard.
“Making a transition is a hard thing to do,” Brown said. “The older partners have to be willing to let go. But the partners here wanted the firm to exist when they were done practicing, so they did it. There was apprehension, but everyone had the same goal: We were not going to let clients walk out the door.” And let go they did.
Two years after Shelist, who founded the firm in 1970 along with four other lawyers, stepped down as managing partner, he was no longer on the management committee. That was part of the firm’s succession plan, which, over a period of six years, transferred the running of the firm from the founding partners to the firm’s new generation.
“The founding partners wanted the second generation to take over,” Brown said. “We probably could have gotten here without the succession planning and the transition period, but it wouldn’t have been pretty.”
Succession planning is the law firm equivalent of estate planning and - probably for that reason - is always something the firm puts off doing. It’s difficult, it’s highly charged emotionally, and it’s time-consuming.
So difficult, in fact, that a 2006 survey by Robert Half Legal found that only 41 percent of the nation’s 1,000 largest law firms and corporate legal departments had a formal succession plan. But succession is going to happen, whether the firm plans for it or not.
“Why do people not have a will together?” said E. Michael Ciesla, a partner at Ciesla & Ciesla in Northbrook who does succession planning for businesses. “Succession planning forces you to concentrate on something that’s not profitable, and you’re facing your own mortality by doing it. You always think there’s plenty of time, and then your biggest rainmaker has health problems, or decides to step down, then it becomes an emergency.”
“It gets done one way or the other, either ad hoc or planned,” said David Gustman, a partner at Freeborn & Peters. “Most firms don’t adequately plan - it’s not unique to small firms. I think it’s human nature that prevents people from thinking about the end of what they’ve worked so hard all their lives to achieve.
“Putting a transition plan into place is hard, it takes time to do it, you need to get consensus among people, there are a lot of difficult issues,” Gustman said. “I’m chairman of executive committee. We’ve been engaged in forming a transition plan for the better part of a year, and we’re still working on it. But the time to do it is when you’re relatively young, rather than waiting until everybody is at the traditional retirement age, and asking what does everybody think.”
The stereotype of law firm succession - not the planning part - is the older partner who refuses to give up power, hoarding clients, and hanging on to his full partnership share. There is truth in that stereotype, but, as Gustman said, at some point the law firm is going to change, period. And the consequences of not mapping out the future of the firm can bring the firm down.
“There are a lot of firms with a great history and cool stories that didn’t work out,” said Don Hershman, a partner at Much Shelist.
Succession planning is a particularly acute issue for mid-sized firms like Much Shelist and Freeborn & Peters. Especially in mid-sized firms, the client base is not institutionalized.
“Commonwealth Edison is always going to be a Sidley client,” Hershman said, “but I think Mike Shelist’s clients looked at Mike Shelist as their lawyer, not Much Shelist. We’re dealing with the mentality that you hire the lawyer, not the firm, but that’s never the case, there’s always a support team of lawyers, and you need to let the client know that.”
“We have some great institutional clients,” said Thomas Fahey, managing partner at Ungaretti & Harris, “but we don’t have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for our institutional clients to call us. We need to continue to have our partners really constantly enhance their visibility and their client development skills.”
In order for this transition to happen, the firm’s leaders have to step up and take on the issue of succession. It’s a transfer of power and money, but, ultimately, it’s about money.
“You don’t get to anything unless you get to dealing with the older partner,” said Lewis Schneider, a partner at Pretzel & Stouffer. “How do you get somebody to give up control? You make it financially feasible. You want to make sure the partner is not financially threatened by giving up control. You fully fund his retirement plan, make sure his insurance is paid, provide for deferred compensation based on his book of business, or a percentage of fees collected, or a formula based on prior earnings.”
“With succession planning issues, you have to look at the financial ramifications, because, inevitably, everyone wants to know what’s in it for me,” Ciesla said. “The older partners are relinquishing power, so, what are they getting in return? And the people ascending want to know what it’s going to cost them.
“And I think there’s an emotional component that you have to be sensitive to,” Ciesla said. “If an older partner is looking to step down, he’s probably going through some emotional stuff. You have to learn to let go of the control aspect, going from head of the firm to of counsel. To go from being in charge for a long time, to having no power, it’s an emotional process, and the younger attorneys ascending have to be sensitive to that.”
A succession plan
Those are the two poles - the old and the young - and for the firm to work its way through the egos and fears and ambitions, there has to be a fundamental agreement on what the firm is and what it’s going to be. Until the firm reaches agreement on that, there’s no real basis for the planning.
There are two aspects to the planning, and, ultimately, they both run together: financial and the vision of the firm - what Brown of Much Shelist calls “the sense of firm.” And, if the elders of the firm won’t cede power, then nothing happens. Succession planning, and the succession itself, requires buy-in from the firm, because this isn’t an isolated event - it affects the entire firm, and for a long time.
“Our sense of firm is that you have people who enjoy practicing law the way we practice,” said Hershman of Much Shelist. “You might make a little less money here than at an institutional firm, but you’re controlling your own destiny. We wanted this firm to continue. It is buy-in and commitment to the firm to keep the firm as it is now and getting better.”
If that sense, that desire for the firm to continue as its founders intended, beyond their departures, exists, then the succession of the firm can take place in an orderly and satisfactory way - one that rewards the retiring partners financially and emotionally, one that gives the younger lawyers the opportunity to become the new leaders of the firm, and to make more money, and, most importantly, it keeps the firm strong, cohesive, and vibrant for the another generation of lawyers.
“You need to get the clients and the management of the firm to the next generation,” Brown said. “It impacts the entire firm. But it’s a hard thing to do - you want to avoid hard feelings - you want to approach it so everyone wins. Our vision was, this can work, so everyone had to check their egos at the door.”
“We are literally confronting the issue of transition, just starting to experience senior partners at a stage in their careers and lives where they’re looking to downshift in firm life,” Fahey said. “It’s gone very appropriately and peaceably in terms of working with them so the firm can continue to take advantage of their skills, leadership, perspective on things while giving them a meaningful home while relationships get transitioned. It has happened here as a natural process rather than as a forced one.”
“Compensation during transition perhaps is the most difficult issue,” Gustman said. “The single biggest issue is the personal financial plan of the partner who is in an economic position to transition - if the partner is able to transition rather than hanging on because they need to work.
“You find lawyers who would like to transition but can’t because of their financial condition, and lawyers who haven’t thought about retirement - they have nothing to do except come to the office.
That’s not unique to lawyers, but you have to start thinking about the second half of your life.”
The touchy part of the transition is finding a way to move the clients from the older generation to the younger generation while compensating the older partner for fostering a relationship with the younger partners, and figuring out where credit for the client relationship properly goes.
“There are only so many dollars to go around, so you take from one person and give to another in order to recognize that a transition is going on,” Schneider said. “A lot depends on the compensation system the firm has - in most cases, it’s productivity, billable hours, source credit and credit for managing the business.
“Most likely it’s going to be continuing to give the senior partner some credit for sourcing even after he’s made the transition and also for managing the client,” he said. “You play with variables and you want it to be satisfactory and motivational - it has to be in the partner’s interest.
“Fear of someone jumping ship is one of the barriers. Some partners are reluctant to transition the client unless they’re certain the partner is going to be in the firm as long as they’re in retirement, so you have to come up with ways to keep the younger lawyers - give them a date certain when they’re going to have clients and management responsibility,” Schneider said. “They have to know they have more to lose by leaving and more to gain by staying.”
“Who gets credit for client relationships is an important issue,” Fahey said, “and we work with senior partners to make sure credit also gets to the younger partners working with the client. It’s a bit of a challenge to decide who gets rewarded for that process. We probably have situations where the senior and younger partners were feeling they weren’t properly rewarded on a case-by-case situation, but it’s worked well overall.
“You have to recognize the historical relationships and at the same time move credits to the younger partners,” he said. “Clients have been very copasetic - that part has been seamless, because the clients are used to being serviced by teams, so it’s okay that the more senior lawyer is not on matters day-to-day, but is available when needed.”
Here’s what Much Shelist did. For the partners who were ready to step back, the firm created a “senior status program.” If the partner bills under 1,400 hours for two consecutive years, he or she is retired to the senior status program.
At that point, the senior partners begin the process of transitioning their clients to younger lawyers. Part of their job - for which they received billing credit - is to transition the clients of the firm.
“They are paid for the hours they work and for transitioning the client,” Brown said.
The senior status program started eight years ago, and nearly all the clients were successfully transitioned to the younger lawyers. The transition took place over six years, and, during that time, the younger partners didn’t get paid as the clients were transitioned to them.
The transition was not without its bumps. But, Brown said, the firm leaders kept a close eye on what was working and what wasn’t. When younger partners selected to take over certain clients didn’t work well, the assignments were changed.
And, in the process, Brown noticed that a further transition was happening: the younger lawyers began to feel empowered.
“The challenge was, can you keep this client?” Brown said. “The younger lawyers matured in their understanding of the client; we saw service attorneys get a little more confidence as they learned what you can do to help clients. They grew their practices, increased their skills.”
Management and power
Giving up power is difficult for the older lawyers, but it’s equally difficult for the firm to identify those in the next generation who have the interest and talent for managing the firm.
The transition time is, Ciesla said, “an open invitation to the younger attorneys to say, “Now we can do things the way we want. Take the best of what there was and infuse new ideas.”
“If a person has pride in the firm and cares about it,” Schneider said, “they’re going to want to make sure that the person who takes their place is someone they know and developed taking over responsibility in management and client relationships, whatever the partner is giving up.
“In my experience it’s the younger partners taking ownership, seeing holes in the leadership and stepping up, having an appetite,” Schneider said. “You need to identify the right people with the skills, talent, and desire to get involved in firm management - people who can take over at earliest possible moment - and you need to provide training and recognize you may have made a mistake.”
“One of the goals of our transition plan is to make sure younger partners are in management training roles,” Gustman said. “That’s generally working on committees so that lawyers are encouraged to transition to the junior lawyers management as well as client responsibility. One of the legs of our transition plan is going to be a process of bringing lawyers in their 40s into management roles, even when the senior lawyers are still managing well.”
The more a firm deals with succession planning, the more apparent it is that it’s actually a way to address many firm issues.
“Is there a strategic plan in place? A succession plan is a piece of a larger strategic plan,” Schneider said. “I would posit that you can’t have succession plan if you don’t have a strategic plan. These decisions have to be made 10 years before someone retires.”
“There are milestones in a lawyer’s career,” Gustman said.
“At partner age, say, 50, as part of the yearly review process, dialogue should begin of how the partner will eventually transition, and at what point that will happen. The partner would be required to present a financial plan to the firm as part of the overall review process. Many people wait until 60, they’re too busy, like the doctor who never treats his family or takes care of himself.
“Some firms agree to pay a lawyer for five years as a transition, but we always made it pretty clear when we formed the firm, six or seven of us, that the firm would not be responsible for financial retirement, and we created a 401k plan. Those firms that have a defined compensation plan to pay retired partner for five years, with many firms that’s a millstone around the necks of the younger partners or the firm. That’s why we didn’t do it.”
“Usually,” Ciesla said, “a transition can cause short-term financial problems. It’s going to hurt a little or a lot financially, the firm might have to take out loans or drain the cash. That’s another reason to plan to absorb a hit.”
At Much Shelist, retirement age doesn’t necessarily translate to retirement - the senior status is not based strictly on age. At 69, Morrie Much, one of the founding partners, is still working full-time, still a full equity partner; his last five years have been high-producing years. “It’s not age,” Brown said, “it’s what you want. Morrie Much stepped up his game.”
“God love you if you want to bill 2,000 hours at 70 years old,” said David Gustman from Freeborn & Peters. “I’m happy to have you as my partner.”
Ethics
December 19, 2007
Sexual Relations with Clients
By Thomas P. McGarry
and Thomas P. Sukowicz
Hinshaw & Culbertson
Almost twenty years ago, sexual relations between attorneys and their clients became conduct that was increasingly addressed in disciplinary proceedings and in the rules of professional conduct of many states. Since that time, some states have adopted disciplinary rules prohibiting sexual relations with clients based on ABA Model Rule 1.8(j), which provides:
“A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.”
Some of these rules specifically include a representative of a client as a person with whom sexual relations are forbidden.
Other states prohibit sexual relations only under certain circumstances, such as when the sexual conduct exploits the attorney-client relationship, when sexual relations are demanded or required as a condition of professional representation, when coercion, intimidation, or undue influence is used in entering into the sexual relations, or when the sexual relations cause the lawyer to perform legal services incompetently.
At least one state completely prohibits sexual relations between lawyers and their divorce clients, but only prohibits sex with other clients when it is required or demanded incident to or as a condition of the representation, or when the attorney employs coercion, intimidation, or undue influence. At least one state also prohibits sexual relations with the spouse of a client.
Illinois currently does not have a specific rule prohibiting sexual relations between a lawyer and his or her client, but Illinois attorneys have been disciplined for engaging in sexual relations with clients under various circumstances. In such cases, the ARDC typically looks at the sexual conduct to determine if it violates rules related to conflicts of interest, confidentiality, dishonesty, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
One rule commonly implicated in sexual relations with a client is Rule 1.7(b), which prohibits the representation of a client when that representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests. The material limitation on the representation of the client is often illustrated with reference to divorce cases. As one court put it, “when an attorney engages in sexual relations with a divorce client, particularly where issues of child custody and division of marital assets are disputed, that attorney’s interest in maintaining the sexual relationship creates an inherent conflict with the proper representation of the client.” In re Pellizzari, 726 A.2d 451 (R.I., 1999).
In In re Martoccio, M.R. 15417 (1999), a lawyer began a consensual sexual affair with a client while representing her in her divorce. Custody, visitation, removal of the minor daughter to Wisconsin, support, maintenance, and property division were all issues in the case. Initially, the divorce was amicable, but when the husband learned of the affair, he became hostile and more adamant about fighting for custody of the child. The settlement negotiations were disrupted and the resolution of the case delayed, even though the lawyer voluntarily withdrew after being served with a motion to disqualify.
The ARDC charged the lawyer with violating Rule 1.7(b) and other rules, including 1.16(a)(2), which requires a lawyer to withdraw from employment when his continued employment will result in a violation of the rules. Although the lawyer did withdraw, he did not do so until he was confronted with a motion to disqualify. He was also charged with violating Rule 3.7(a) for continuing the representation when he should have known that he may be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client.
Under some circumstances, the ARDC also charges lawyers who engage in sexual relations with clients with overreaching. The Supreme Court has defined overreaching for purposes of attorney discipline as taking undue advantage of the position of influence he holds vis-a-vis a client. In re Stillo, 68 Ill.2d 49 (1977).
In In re Horne, M.R.12936 (1997), the lawyer was found to have engaged in overreaching with a client who had retained him to collect child support from the putative father of her child. Although the lawyer learned that the client had a history of emotional problems, he entered into sexual relations with her and fathered a child with her.
Sexual relations with a client’s spouse can also get a lawyer into trouble. In In re Reilly, 99 SH 70, the lawyer began a sexual relationship with the former husband of her divorce client before the attorney-client relationship with the ex-wife had concluded. The Board found that the lawyer had breached her fiduciary duty to her client and violated Rule 1.7(b) even though she had not misused any information she obtained from the client and her representation of the client was not deficient.
The Illinois Supreme court is currently considering the recommendation of its Rules Committee that it adopt a rule like ABA Model Rule 1.8(j), cited above, and may adopt such a rule some time in 2008.
Diversity in Practice
December 19, 2007
By Arin N. Reeves, J.D., Ph.D.
The Athens Group
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, “Life is a journey, not a destination,” have been paraphrased often to describe abstractions like love and success that are difficult to evaluate through objective standards. “Diversity is a journey, not a destination,” is a statement made repeatedly by people (including myself) when we are frustrated with the progress of diversity in the legal profession. Reflecting simultaneously the efforts and challenges in moving forward, this phrase is an excellent entry into the dialogue I aspire to continue with this column.
As functional as the phrase is, I have come to realize that diversity is neither a journey nor a destination. It is merely a pit stop in the longer journey of configuring how to live, work, play, share resources, and thrive together as a society of individuals. Moreover, the frustration underlying the phrase stems from the journey’s requiring us to consider whether equality requires sameness or whether we can be different and equal at the same time.
Our history began with the legislation of inequality and exclusion on the basis of a person’s race (slavery), gender (suffrage), and ethnicity (internment camps), and was followed by our attempts to undo the exclusion and inequality by legislating equality and inclusion (equal treatment, civil rights). The pit stop of anti-discrimination legislation was our effort to stop discrimination — to halt and heal the inequities it caused.
Our social relationships and values, in the meantime, already mirrored and mimicked the inequalities — we stopped discriminating, but we did not begin including. So, even though the first black lawyer broke through discrimination barriers to become licensed to practice law in 1844, it took the ABA 100 years (1943) to allow minorities to become members and another 60 years (2003) to elect its first minority president. Legislation was necessary but insufficient.
From the legislative pit stop, we traveled to affirmative action — proactively including the historically excluded. Affirmative action programs further decreased exclusion; however, stark disparities in achievement continued to trace the same fault lines of historically legislated exclusions.
The legal profession, reformed by anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action, entered the 1970s with women as 3 percent and minorities as 1 percent of all lawyers. By 1990, law schools were almost 50 percent women and 25 percent minorities; but women were only 12.27 percent, and minorities only 2.55 percent of all national law firm partners. If legislation unlocked the doors, and affirmative action opened the doors, why, then, did law firms still look much as they had when these doors were locked?
This question advanced us from the affirmative action pit stop to diversity — initiatives designed to make educational institutions and workplaces more representative of national demographics. Yet, even with law school populations stabilizing at 50 percent women and 25 percent minorities since 1990, by 2006, national law firm partnerships had only increased their diversity to 18.34 percent women and 5.40 percent minorities. This rate of change would require women about 80 years and minorities about 100 years to achieve parity between their representation in law schools and national law firm partnerships.
Diversity efforts, along with teaching us that we can neither legislate nor hurry cultural change, raise questions about the definition and trajectory of diversity itself. Should diversity include other historically excluded groups like gay/lesbian lawyers, religious minorities, and lawyers with disabilities? Does focusing on diversity divert attention away from merit? Is there a business case for diversity and should the economic imperative be our primary motivation? Do generational differences change our dialogue on diversity? Are white men disadvantaged by diversity efforts? Will the answers to these questions move us forward, or cause us to rethink the journey itself?
Our exploration of these questions deepens our understanding of diversity and propels our movement to the pit stop of inclusion — efforts to move workplaces from hiring diverse talent to ensuring that every person in the workplace has an equal opportunity to succeed. Workplaces now struggle with the question of whether historically excluded groups have the same access to the necessary information, skills development opportunities, relationships, and networks for success in the workplace that the historically included groups have long enjoyed.
As legal employers recognize that diversity in hiring does not translate into diversity at every level, inclusion asks us if our profession merely accommodates diversity, or if it values diversity and is willing to change for it.
As we enter 2008, the legal profession continues to struggle with the diversity-to-inclusion leg of this journey. Legislation has unlocked doors; affirmative action has opened doors; diversity is inviting people in; and inclusion promises that diverse groups can be fully integrated into the conversation that has historically been held behind locked doors. With the different perspectives that diversity will continue to bring into the room, inclusion asks us if we are willing to change the structure, substance, and style of the conversation itself.
This column will explore the questions (and answers) that landscape our journey to becoming a profession where differences and equality thrive in partnership. I welcome your questions, comments, and general musings about this journey, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue.
Clifford’s Notes
December 19, 2007
By Robert A. Clifford
Clifford Law Offices
An
Upon investigation by state disciplinary officials, it was found that the lawyer, in fact, only handled personal injury claims that could be resolved through settlement. He never represented clients at trial and had referred cases to another attorney without obtaining the written consent of his clients.
The lawyer’s license was suspended for one year, which was stayed after 30 days, followed by a period of probation. In re Mark Sciblo, M.R. 20399, 04 CH 97 (
Although there are potential marketing or advertising violations that are brought to the attention of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee by consumers, competitors, or even anonymously, James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the ARDC, said, “We try to focus on helping widows and orphans, not advertising and marketing violations.” Certainly, if it comes to the attention of the ARDC, as in the Sciblo case, the state will investigate and take action, he said.
Grogan notes that, although the decisions are public, they are published by the Illinois Supreme Court as Administrative Orders, not opinions, and can be found by searching online or through the office of the court.
Attorneys have been allowed to advertise for the last 30 years since Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), recognized that “advertising is the traditional mechanism in a free-market economy for a supplier to inform a potential purchaser of the availability and terms of exchange.” The
A case in point: A few years ago on late-night television, Robert Vaughn, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., could be seen pitching lawyers’ services in a commercial that was customized to name the local law firm in a particular market. He became the voice of an
Vaughn then advised viewers that, “‘[T]he insurance companies know the name Keller & Keller,’” and invited anyone injured in an automobile accident to tell insurance companies that they “mean business” by calling that particular law firm. He also added, “‘They go after your rights piece by piece by piece until you get every dollar you deserve.’”
The Indiana Disciplinary Commission publicly reprimanded two attorneys at the firm.
In 2002, the American Bar Association changed its Rules for Professional Conduct to allow lawyers to advertise their services “through written, recorded or electronic communication,” first recognizing the latter. Rule 7.2(a) Clearly, the advertising landscape has changed with the proliferation of electronic media, in particular, the Internet. As lawyers make their way through the maze of advertising possibilities, they must tread carefully, realizing that many questions are raised regarding ethics, attorney-client relationships, entrepreneurial opportunities, consumer deception, and guarding the public trust in our system of justice.
A lawyer who advertises her experience and qualifications is protected by the First Amendment, provided that accurate factual information is presented that can be objectively verified.
Although it is important for both consumers and businesses to understand the role of lawyers, they must receive information in a constructive, objective, accurate way. Deceptive or misleading advertising has not been found to be protected under the First Amendment’s commercial speech doctrine. It must be remembered that the purpose of regulating lawyer advertising is not only to punish an offending lawyer but also to protect the public by maintaining the integrity of the bar.
Election lawyers hope to protect the vote
December 19, 2007
By Olivia Clarke
The 2000 presidential election forced the public to become more aware of election law, and the lawyers who practice this type of law.
“Prior to that, people didn’t generally understand that people practiced in a distinct area called election law,” said Craig S. Burkhardt, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “Now people are very aware of election law. You see election lawyers on television giving commentary on CNN and Fox, and campaigns have become very concerned about having good election advice.”
A small group of local lawyers practice election law. Most do not devote their entire practice to this area because the work can depend on the election season. But they say this practice has seen changes in recent years, and will get increasingly busy as the 2008 presidential election edges closer.
“I think that the election of 2000, on a national scale, really sort of intensified the focus on legal issues related to the ballot,” said John Fogarty, an associate at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella. “There is this thought that the legal component of election strategy is quite key to winning any election. Many elections are so close that lawyers can make a difference.”
Read more
With lights and cameras, lawyers see ways to cultivate action
December 19, 2007
By A huge explosion this summer at the old Brach’s factory plant in the city’s West Side sent an emblem of Chicago’s once-thriving candy industry crashing down.
And in the wake of the building’s destruction — orchestrated for Hollywood and captured as a scene from the upcoming sequel to director Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” — came a rise in film production activity in the city.
“The Dark Knight” project starring Christian Bale as Batman — along with other big-studio productions that recently filmed in Chicago, such as the Vince Vaughan comedy “Fred Claus” and the Angelina Jolie thriller “Wanted” — attracted a great deal of media attention in 2007.
And the big-budget productions contributed to a blockbuster year for film and television shoots of all sorts in the city, generating jobs for local technical crews and actors, and boosting economic development in town, said Rich Moskal, director of the Chicago Film Office, which helps producers navigate red tape in the city.
“It’s certainly going to be one of our better years,” said Moskal, pointing out that “The Dark Knight” project, alone, spent about $40 million during its three-month shoot in Chicago this summer. “Right now, we’re actually doing quite well in our ability to lure big movie productions and television pilots.”
But while the making of a major motion picture involves a morass of legal issues, the big-studio film projects don’t necessarily translate to significantly more work for Chicago’s community of media and entertainment lawyers. Those productions tend to come to town with their own sets of legal teams already at play, local lawyers pointed out.
“The lawyers who are working on those projects are either in L.A. or New York, and are largely in-house lawyers in the studios doing much of that work,” said entertainment lawyer Robert Labate, who is a partner in the Chicago office of Holland & Knight.
For Chicago-based entertainment lawyers, any legal work from blockbuster projects that film in the city tends to be limited to matters such as reviewing location-release documents for property owners whose buildings are featured in a scene, or assisting studios or networks in obtaining tax credits as part of Illinois’ tax-incentive program.
“Frankly, that’s not where all the fun is and that’s not where all the work is,” Labate said. “The big [legal] issues [in film projects] are the film financing, and the distribution, and the acquisition of intellectual property — none of which is done while they’re here. So much of it is taken care of before production starts, before they get out here.”
But that’s not to say local entertainment lawyers like Labate — who handles those kinds of complex legal matters for his own clients in Chicago and around the country, including national production companies and producers of nationally distributed feature and documentary films — haven’t been busy in a city that is also seeing a rise in locally produced, independent filmmaking and other forms of media production, such as infomercials, promotional videos, and documentaries.
“Media production is here, and it’s growing fast,” Labate said. “Everybody sees the trailers on the streets, but the real story for the legal community is, media production is all around us that no one sees. It means we have a subculture here.”
Home-grown talent
Unlike Los Angeles or New York, “Chicago is not the corporate headquarters of the entertainment industry,” said Moskal of the Chicago Film Office.
“As a result, there hasn’t been much need for attorneys here,” he said. “But it’s changing as more and more of these independent film productions are popping up.”
Just eight years ago, Moskal pointed out, only a handful of independent features per year were being produced in the city. Today, he said, the average per year is closer to 40 locally produced, independent features.
“Some of these might get distribution, some might make it on the festival circuit, and if they go the way most independent features go, they have a tough time even just getting anybody to see them, but that’s just the nature of the business,” Moskal said.
“The fact that they’re being made with local money points to Chicago being more of a full production center, a source of creativity and destination for feature film, which is a big difference from being just a destination,” Moskal added. “We’ll forever be at the whim of Hollywood, who’s constantly on the lookout for cheaper, easier places to work. But the more we are home to the above-the-line aspects of filmmaking — the screenwriters, the financers — the greater control we’ll have over how much production we’ll be able to do here.”
With a full slate of schools in Chicago churning out new generations of filmmakers, some are pushing for ways to keep those creative folks in town to produce their work.
“There is work here, but it’s not stable enough right now because [Chicago is] overly defined as a location,” said Bruce Sheridan, chair of the Film & Video Department at Columbia College Chicago. “In order to move to the next phase, it’s got to be a place that has a lot of indigenous creations, things that are created and driven in the Midwest.”
For that to happen, said Sheridan, it takes a more holistic approach to building up the local film business infrastructure.
“This is the largest film school in the country, and it’s in Chicago,” Sheridan said, referring to Columbia. “Increasingly, we are working at such a highly professional standard that we are putting out real filmmakers. We want them to have the option to stay in this environment, but one of the biggest impediments to that would be a lack of options for forming the appropriate professional relationships.”
As such, the school, in December, was ironing out a plan to collaborate with the Chicago Bar Association’s Media & Entertainment Committee and the pro bono organization Lawyers for the Creative Arts in a program that would bring seasoned entertainment lawyers, and lawyers wishing to build a focus on the entertainment industry, to practicum sessions with senior film students working on “high-production value” shorts, Sheridan said.
There, said Labate, who serves as co-chair of the CBA committee, participating lawyers would be on hand to provide insight into the legal and business side of film production, offering answers to questions on issues ranging from acquisition to deals involving talent, crews, licensing, and distribution.
“It does not matter if you have the greatest talent in the world as a filmmaker. If you cannot deliver the bundle of legal rights, you have a very expensive home movie,” Labate said.
Under the program, organizers said, budding producers could cultivate relationships with both seasoned and aspiring entertainment lawyers early on, in a setting where groups of lawyers and groups of student producers could together build expertise in their areas of concentration.
“What we really need is to have new lawyers in town, lawyers that really see entertainment as a primary focus of their practice,” Sheridan said.
Building a law practice that focuses primarily on the entertainment industry takes time.
Jerry Wayne Glover, an attorney with Chicago-based Entertainment & Intellectual Property Group, said he broke into the entertainment business as a lawyer in 1985, when he was hired by Chicago’s public television station WTTW. Like many entertainment lawyers in town, he started out offering pro bono legal services to artists through Lawyers for the Creative Arts.
And while his private practice today at the Chicago law firm maintains a presence in the city, “we’re not, certainly, reliant upon just the Chicago market,” he said.
Neither is Holland & Knight’s Labate, who brings a background in complex corporate restructuring to his entertainment practice, which began 15 years ago on a pro-bono basis.
But that’s not to say there is no demand in Chicago for lawyers to handle a full range of matters in media and entertainment. To the contrary, Labate said.
“The work is here, you just have to get and have enough experience to respond quickly enough,” Labate said. “The market has grown tremendously, and it is going to continue to grow. If you’re not trained, you’re not going to be able to do it in a profitable way.
“There are clients who need high-level assistance, but you don’t go from zero to sophisticated media and entertainment deals without getting experience,” Labate said. “It’s about relationships. It takes a long time to build the relationships to build the work. You don’t just hang out your shingle and start.”
Cultivating relationships with budding filmmakers through the planned program at Columbia could be one way of shortcutting the road to building such a practice in Chicago, Labate said.
“It’s about really getting to know the creative people while they’re here, and maybe, while they’re younger and less well-known,” Labate said. “These are the people who are going to be making your top films five years from now. Many of them will either stay in Chicago to do their films, or they’ll come back to Chicago. This means that if the lawyers here are good enough, then they will be working on the top deals, they’ll be working with the top producers, they’ll be working on top films that you’ll see released in three to five years.”
While Glover contended that the easiest route to becoming a full-time entertainment lawyer might be to give it a go in Los Angeles or New York, there is another avenue to getting started in the business.
“One of the easiest ways to find clients is to go as a voluntary attorney. That doesn’t pay the rent, but it certainly is a way to get started in representing actual clients in the entertainment field,” Glover said. “And, who knows, you start volunteering, you find a client, they make it big, they stay with you — there you go.”
Daliah Saper, 27, started her own intellectual property and business law firm three years ago in Chicago, with a focus on technology, media, and entertainment matters.
“My clients are five years out; ten years out. They’re still not bringing in the revenue to hire a Winston & Strawn or a Jenner & Block, but they need sophisticated legal counsel that is familiar both with the business aspects of entertainment law and the intellectual property aspects of entertainment law,” Saper said. “We’re catering to the people who are aspiring to be the big-time, or who are content to being in their own niche — independent, local artists who have a local following, or film companies catering to local businesses creating video and advertising content.”
Saper said her firm has been able to carve out a niche by catering to new start-ups, or focusing on businesses with an online presence.
“I think you have to get creative with finding the entertainment client,” Saper said.
And, action
For lawyers, there’s far more to the media and entertainment landscape than the high-profile feature film shoots that use Chicago as backdrop for a few weeks, grabbing headlines with elaborate film sequences and celebrity.
Labate points to the developing area of digital media production, which could mean the creation of almost any audio/visual product that can be transmitted over mediums such as the Internet, satellite, wireless, broadcast, and cable television — and distributed through all kinds of platforms, from the big-screens of movie houses and DVDs, to the postage stamp-size screens of cell phones.
“Everything is moving toward digital media. Films, really, are no more than trailers for DVD sales — even the major ones,” Labate said. “Digital media is where the action is. You have to look beyond [feature] films. If you’re looking into the future and where people are going, there’s so much more than just a theatrical release.
While the city is seeing more independent film production activity, “We’re talking about $500,000 to $1.5 million productions,” Labate said.
As a lawyer, “If you limit yourself to independent filmmakers, of course there’s not going to be enough work,” he said. “But look past that into media, there’s lots of work to be done, and there’s going to be more of it.”
TeamWorks Media, a sports and entertainment content company in Chicago that counts ESPN and Coca-Cola among its clients, is one example of an independent production company that provides a hybrid of media services, including digital media production, integrated marketing, and branded entertainment creation.
For instance, the 7-year-old production house — which is situated in the Near West Side, not far from Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions studio — is the creator of a series of promotional spots, which initially featured rapper Talib Kweli, as part of the Big Ten Conference’s “Welcome to the Big Stage” men’s college basketball campaign.
The company has also produced national documentaries, such as one created for and about the Harlem Globetrotters, “The Team That Changed the World.”
“There is this booming content industry [in Chicago] that’s under the radar,” said Kevin Krebs, one of the company’s founders. “When we started our company, our whole premise was that there’s a lot of production in New York and L.A., but Chicago is a viable market. Throughout the seven years, whether it’s been documentaries or commercial productions, we’ve focused on trying to get that business in Chicago.
“When we founded the company, it was in knowing that this era of convergence was coming,” Krebs said. “Broadband was the fastest-growing medium ever — faster than broadcast television, cable. Now, you’re able to, through mobile and the Internet, cater to a specific niche in a very smart way, just because the technology is there.”
With the opening of the Internet and the growing number of avenues for the distribution of digital media, comes a demand for original content, such as webisodes or television programming that airs initially as an Internet download, or vignettes made exclusively for cell phones.
New media can mean new challenges for lawyers whose clients are the producers of that content.
“Those lawyers who have viewed themselves as entertainment and media lawyers need to stay on top of this rapidly evolving world,” said Jeffrey H. Brown, an entertainment lawyer and a partner in Michael Best & Friedrich. “Those who want to represent clients in this arena have to make sure that they still have a fundamental understanding of the underlying substantive areas of law — that’s copyright, contracts, trademarks, rights of publicity and privacy.”
They also need to be sensitive of technology that doesn’t exist now.
“When you’re dealing with contracts you have to try to anticipate developments that don’t currently exist, and try to build into your deals and contracts a mechanism to address how technology in business deals may evolve in the future,” Brown said.
While advances in digital media technology means movies can effectively be made anywhere, some say Chicago can play a strong role, largely because of the talent that exists here — including the many film and media schools in town, theater companies and musicians, and a strong advertising industry.
“Chicago is always about corporations making money and artists creating world-class art,” Labate said. “You have to monetize media production, and there has been great uncertainly about how to monetize the Internet. How do you take your short film and make money out of it? The way you do that is to get to all kinds of mediums and formats. That’s where L.A. is right now, that’s where New York is right now. My bet is Chicago is not far behind them.”
Manning courts her supreme love
December 19, 2007
“As you’re articulating these thoughts through music, it’s kind of like a search for beauty. You’re expanding, trying to find new horizons. It’s exciting to me.”
On most Monday nights, Blanche M. Manning leaves her gavel and robes behind, picks up her tenor saxophone and lets loose in the well of her federal courtroom.
Courtroom 2125 of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse is where Manning, by day, has been presiding over civil and criminal cases since she joined the federal bench in 1994, a highlight of a long law career she considers a passion.
For one night each week, however, the courtroom becomes one of the many places where the veteran jurist meets up with her first love: music.
At 5 feet tall, an unassuming Manning, strapped to her sax, mixes with lawyers, paralegals, law librarians and others from Chicago’s legal community as an otherwise orderly space is transformed into a frenzied jazz rehearsal hall for the Barristers Big Band.
Manning, 73, is a co-founder of the Barristers, which was formed in 2000. She has also been playing bass clarinet - the instrument of her music roots, which stretch back to high school - with the Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra since its early years in the late 1980s.
“There were about five or six of us who were in the symphony orchestra who said, ‘Enough of this classical music all the time. Let’s throw a little jazz in here, too,’ ” Manning said. “Now we play a lot of jazz from the masters, like Tommy Dorsey, Jimmy Dorsey, Duke Ellington.”
On a recent rehearsal night in her courtroom in December, Manning and the Barristers were gearing up for a holiday performance at Navy Pier. The judge had already accepted an invitation to play a gig scheduled for that same date at a Maywood club with another ensemble, The Jazzy Ladies. But she was determined to find away to make it to both venues.
“I enjoy playing for audiences. I think I’m a big ham,” Manning said. “For anybody who asks me to play, I usually am there.”
And although the tenor sax is her “major instrument,” there are many others she has come to know well. She plays all the saxophones - the tenor, soprano, alto and, “the big baritone saxophone I cannot lift, but I can sit and play it. It’s bigger than I am.” Then there is the piano, vibraphone and bass guitar.
“I guess that’s about it,” she said. “It takes up half of my living room.”
As a member of about a half-dozen bands and ensembles-some of them associated with the legal community, some not - Manning said she is either rehearsing or performing just about every other night of the week.
She is frequently seen fixed to her sax at social functions for judges and other groups in the legal community, playing with smaller ensembles such as an offshoot of the Barristers called the “Scales of Justice,” and with a jazz trio led by attorney Gregory P. Vazquez.
“She’s able to make a few phone calls and put together a small band or a combo to play at almost any event,” said Chief U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman. “With the talent she has as the lead saxophonist, it really makes it passionate.”
She also performs at private events and public festivals, such as Taste of Chicago, alongside a group of women that includes school teachers, a daycare provider and two retired members from the back-up band to Moms Mabley’s live comedy shows of the early 1960s.
The women make up KCR (Kindness, Charity and Respect), a nine-piece, all-female ensemble whose founders were inspired by the International Sweethearts of Rhythm, an all-women, multiracial big band that became famous in the 1940s.
The judge also plays in her church band.
“She’s the most prolific lawyer-musician in town, possibly anywhere,” said John S. Vishneski III, a partner in Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver who leads the Barristers.
From her courtroom next door, U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer said she can hear the brass section of the Barristers start to jell as each season wears on.
“I’ve always viewed the location as a plus,” Pallmeyer said. “I always joke with Judge Manning that her music is the reason the property values are so high on the 21st floor.”
An articulate musician
When asked what feeds her passion for music, Manning - who juggled law school in the 1960s with teaching in Chicago’s elementary schools - struggles to find the words.
“I just know that I enjoy it greatly, and without it I’d feel lost,” she said, adding that she has stepped up her music engagements since her husband of 47 years died in 2004.
Perhaps the answer reveals itself when she talks about the musicians she tries to emulate, like jazz giant Lester Young, the tenor saxophonist also known as “The Prez,” whose innovative style influenced another of Manning’s idols, Dexter Gordon.
Manning has a black-hooded jacket emblazoned with the nickname she answers to in certain circles: “Lil Ms. Prez.”
“He just had a beautiful sound and he was very articulate in his playing,” said Manning, referring to Young. “It was just something about his sound.”
For Manning-who appreciates all forms of jazz, including bebop, swing and ballads, as well as the blues - playing music is like talking.
“You’re conveying your emotions and thoughts - it’s communicating,” she said. “The horn makes different kinds of sounds. You might make a raspy sound, and it shows emotions … You can use low pitches, the rhythm. You’re verbalizing.”
Keeping her cool
From the bench, Manning communicates in a different way.
However, “I probably have the same personality on the bench as when I play,” she said. “I try to remain cool and be understanding, and be concerned. I, obviously, take everything that comes before me very seriously, but I try to be understanding as to everything I’m hearing.”
In 1987, Manning became the first black woman to be elevated to the 1st District Illinois Appellate Court. She joined the federal bench seven years later.
“It’s been an education for me,” said Manning, whose legal career began in 1968 as a prosecutor in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “You don’t get the breadth of experience you find as a district court judge by being a prosecutor. There’s so much other law to deal with [on the federal bench].”
For instance, Manning said, early on in her tenure she presided over the trial of the three top Archer Daniels Midland Co. executives convicted in 1999 of participating in one of the largest price-fixing conspiracies in U.S. history.
“It was quite a learning experience for me. You just have to be very studious about it,” Manning said. “But I have enjoyed it.”
Criminal-defense attorney Thomas M. Breen said Manning maintains a pleasant demeanor on the bench.
He has appeared before her on several occasions, including the 13-week trial of former Chicago Police Officer Joseph Miedzianowski, the former gang crimes specialist who was convicted in 2001 of racketeering on charges that he used his badge to run a Miami-to-Chicago drug ring.
Breen said he was impressed by how Manning handled a “difficult and ugly case.” “She made an intolerable situation very tolerable, and was exceptionably professional,”
Breen said. “She ran a very tight courtroom, but was very fair.”
U.S. Attorney Brian Netols, the lead prosecutor in that case, said, “If there ever were the opportunity for her not to be even-keeled, my guess is it was this trial. She seemed to have no problem with it.
“A lot of the lawyers were awful tired by the end of the 13weeks and she was still cruising. She was still on, engaged and focused the whole time.”
Before imposing the former cop’s life sentence, Manning said she was doing so with “a heavy heart,” adding that she sympathized with the man’s family, according to a transcript of the court proceeding.
“This is really a very dark day in the history of the law enforcement system in this city … you betrayed society,” Manning said.
“There comes a time in every person’s life to embrace what he or she has become, to check the compass of his or her heart, to remember paths traveled,” Manning continued during the sentencing. “I’m afraid to discover, Mr. Miedzianowski, what you know, sir, what men and women have come in your compass, to know how you used your powers to infect a trusting society.
“I do not envy you, sir. You are cast now to confront and to reflect. I hope that you can recognize in your heart what once was, what strikes today, and what shall be.”
‘One helps the other’
Between her music and her judging, Manning said she has found the right mix.
“I think one helps the other,” she said. “Being a judge is a very serious endeavor, and I think after I finish with a day’s work, it’s very relaxing to go and play music.”
Rita Hassell, the leader of the all-female KCR band, summed up the judge’s contribution to the group: “She just brings this spirit that’s never tired. Whatever it is that was on her mind that day [in court], she gives it all to her music, and that’s a consummate musician.”
On a Friday night in November, as part of the entertainment for a benefit promoting brain tumor research held at the Newberry Library, Manning rose from her seat with the KCR band and swayed to the smooth sound of her horn. She belted out her featured sax solo with a sometimes-furrowed brow as the band kept up with a rendition of the classic jazz ballad “Soul Eyes,” by Mal Waldron.
The tune is pretty, she said later, but it’s not among her favorites, like “Misty,” “You Don’t Know What Love Is,” and “Angel Eyes.”
“They’re primarily ballads, but I usually don’t play them slowly,” Manning said. “Usually, the background is kind of a swing. It’s a ballad, but we take it a little faster and have a little more swing to it.”
Manning is quick to acknowledge that playing live music in clubs or at special events, and dispensing justice from the federal bench are distinctly different. For her, however, her music and her judicial work share one crucial, common thread.
“To do both of them you need to have a passion for it,” Manning said. “Especially to be a trial lawyer and a trial judge, I think you really have to have a passion for it. It’s very enjoyable if you have a passion for it. And, of course in music — in order to do it well — definitely.”
The road not taken
Manning’s love affair with music began to bud in 1949,when she was entering the ninth grade at Fenger High School on the Far South Side. She was checking out options for extracurricular activities during a freshman orientation session at the school and decided on band.
Her father bought her a used clarinet and, with the help of a methods book, the teenage Manning taught herself how to play.
“My parents couldn’t afford lessons, so I did the next best thing,” she said.
As a music major at Roosevelt University, Manning learned the sax and joined other young musicians in jam sessions and performances at social centers. Some of those budding musicians went on to become famous, she said, such as tenor saxophonist Eddie Harris.
“I was a clarinet major, but I started running around with all these people, and you don’t play the clarinet at a jam session,” she said, referring to what prompted her to pick up the sax.
Soon, Manning thought her course was set. “I was going to hit the road and play with whomever would have me - as a jazz musician,” she said.
But her plan quickly changed, she said, once her father caught wind of the idea. She took his advice and pursued a career in teaching, where she could “be assured of making a living.”
“I could appreciate that because back in those days [life as a jazz musician] was a rough life, from what I understand,” Manning said.
“As I recall, there were so many people who were in music, who got involved in drugs and things like that, and he was just very concerned about his baby daughter.”
New horizons
Vishneski, the leader of the Barristers Big Band, said Manning is his go-to-player for selections that call for improvised solos, which “takes a great knowledge of your instrument, a good ear, and creativity.” That’s the sort of playing Manning said she looks forward to.
“It’s creativity. It’s your thoughts instead of what’s written down on the paper,” she said. “As you’re articulating these thoughts through music, it’s kind of like a search for beauty. You’re expanding, trying to find new horizons. It’s exciting to me.”
A search for new horizons has also played out in Manning’s professional career.
She graduated from Chicago Teachers College in 1961, and taught at elementary schools in the city for seven years. But it was while she was still at the teachers college, working as a secretary at a law firm on the South Side, when she became interested in law.
She attended The John Marshall Law School at night, while working as a teacher by day. Around that same time, she and her husband, William, then a Cook County sheriff’s deputy, became “instant parents” to six nieces and nephews.
After law school, Manning served as a prosecutor in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office - from 1968 to 1973 - spending much of that time in the Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue.
“I became one of those lawyers who loves to be in the courtroom,” Manning said. “I don’t think I would like to be a real estate lawyer or just drafting wills. I want to be where the action is.”
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, who was Manning’s trial partner in the state’s attorney’s office, said he admired Manning’s trial skills and her appeal to juries.
“She had a great approach to the cases. She had a wonderful courtroom voice, and was able to give truly wonderful arguments. It was an honor to be her partner,” Fitzgerald said. “She is a very nice person, and that came through in the way she conducted herself in court. I think juries she tried cases in front of really liked her.”
Manning, from then, could see herself becoming a judge. “When I was trying cases at 26th Street, that’s what I felt I was training for,” she said.
In her years after the state’s attorney’s office, Manning worked as a supervisory trial attorney in the Equal Employment Commission’s Chicago office, as a labor lawyer for United Airlines, and as an assistant U.S. attorney, before she was appointed in 1979 as an associate judge in the Cook County Circuit Court.
Manning said she wasn’t playing much music while she was raising children and working as a lawyer. She “got back into the groove of playing,” as her judicial career progressed.
In 1986, Manning was elected to a full judgeship. The following year, she was elevated by designation to the Appellate Court. Seven years later, she was sworn in as a U.S. district judge.
Manning said she likes the intellectual challenge and the human interaction that comes with being a federal trial judge.
“I also feel that as a judge you can help society,” she said. “There are so many problems in our society, many of them involve legal issues. In being a judge you’re in a position to interpret the law and to do what you believe to be the law. In doing that … you can’t be one-sided.”
She also continues to strike a balance between her continued pursuit of her two declared passions, keeping a packed music schedule, while maintaining a full criminal and civil load in federal court.
“She could’ve taken senior status some time ago and she hasn’t,” Holderman said. “She continues to be an active, full-time judge, which says something about her commitment to public service.”
Manning, who was recently inducted into the Cook County Bar Association’s 2007 Hall of Fame II, said she’s not ready to retire. “I enjoy doing what I’m doing,” she said. “To me, it’s just very exciting. It’s intellectually stimulating — it really is.
As for her music — stay tuned.
“I just found a new instrument I’m trying to get familiar with, an electronic wind instrument called an EWI,” Manning said. “It’s a wind instrument that has the fingering of a saxophone. You plug in a cable from the EWI into the amplifier. You can also plug it into a digital piano.
“It has the most beautiful mixture of sound. It’s really amazing,” Manning said. “I haven’t mastered it yet, so I’m not playing it publicly, yet.”
Climbing the Ladder
December 19, 2007
Discovering a work-life balance
By Shermin Kruse
Barack Ferrazzano
Kirschbaum & Nagelberg
Work-Life Balance — that ever awkward phrase that is a favorite one to utter during recruiting seasons and long chats with our spouses when we are late for dinner yet again. Amidst the paper chase that we young attorneys are learning is our work, we must learn to pause and carve out some time for that which the poets so matter-of-factly refer to as “Life.” But how to accomplish this mythical task is not so easily determined.
We rise in the early mornings to the sound of that pesky ringing time machine that in a moment of pragmatic-lunacy we programmed the evening before for some ridiculously early hour. Some of us have children to feed and rush off to school. Most linger a second or two longer than necessary at the overpriced coffee spot to emotionally prepare ourselves for another day at the grind mill where we work, think, and perhaps hope to build our futures. We lead profitable and intellectually stimulating days, which, if we are lucky (and I am), are also peppered with pleasant interactions with colleagues who we also call friends. We learn a thing or two about how to practice this fantastic thing they call Law (then suffer through jokes from unsympathetic friends as to how much “practice” it takes to get it right).
Amidst all of this, most of us also give our time to charitable causes, perhaps partly to grow and experience more of what our careers have to offer, but primarily to make a real contribution. And at the end of the day, the week, the month, we come home exhausted and usually late for something.
So, where, in all of this, is that Life thing? Surely the work-life balance means more than the occasional fundraiser and those not-so infrequent hours spent “vegging” in front of the TV. It is not, in my humble opinion, the sad life of quiet desperation of which Thoreau warned. It is, actually, a rather blessed life.
So the first step in achieving the work-life balance is to fully appreciate where we are and what we have. This will inspire and carry us through the difficult days and weeks when our lives are crazed with a fury of activity that is sometimes inevitable and must be accepted. The second step to maintaining that balance is determining what in life really matters to us, then making sure to devote enough time to it.
So, if it is your dream to learn the Argentine tango, you must make “the time” for the lessons. But again, how? Sure, there are the usual bullet points: be assertive, keep a calendar, leverage your secretary and support staff, etc. But the way to really accomplish this balance is to become a psychologist. That is, observe and come to understand the behavior of the organisms around you — your colleagues, and that living thing that is your caseload — and look for predictable patterns.
For instance, if you know that a particular partner with whom you really love to work has a habit of editing briefs to death the night before they are due, do not make special plans the night before. Instead of disappointing your spouse by canceling your plans, schedule them on a night you know will work better to begin with.
Your ability to predict and even set your own schedule is also greatly enhanced as you gain a better sense of the role that the partner wants you to play in the case. This understanding permits you to take the initiative on assignments, rather than waiting to have them “assigned” to you, which, particularly if the partner is going through a very busy period, might not come until the last minute. For example, if you know you are going to be writing the first draft of a brief, drop by his office with a proposed deadline for your draft. Now you can plan around that deadline. Besides helping you drive your own schedule, this will actually make you feel like a bigger part of the team and ultimately help you enjoy your work more.
As you gain experience, you will also come to understand that “living” organism that is your caseload, its cycles, and its temperament. Anticipate the busy periods and when things are likely to be slower — and schedule your Argentine tango lessons during the slower times.
I must admit that I am lucky enough to be with a firm that provides the training one needs to move towards this state of self-sufficiency. If you are not so blessed, and also lack a degree in psychology, the task is more difficult, but not impossible. It does become easier with time, as you mature and the patterns lend themselves to greater predictability. Just remember to begin with gratefulness, shift to observation, and then move on to management. You might just end up enjoying your work, rising ahead of your pesky time telling machine, and, ultimately, writing your own poetry of “Life.”
Choosing sides: Local lawyers help the presidential campaigns
December 19, 2007
David Narefsky first got involved in politics at age 13 when he supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Narefsky stuffed envelopes, and did age-appropriate office work in Humphrey’s campaign office.
Fast-forward about 40 years and Narefsky, now a partner at Mayer Brown, is still involved in presidential campaigns. He assists Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign with fundraising, and provides his expertise on transportation issues.
“I’ve been involved in races at every level,” Narefsky said. “I just feel real strongly about the importance of personal involvement.
“I think it is a critically important election for the country. I really hope people treat it with the seriousness it deserves. The last couple elections have reminded us that every vote really does count.”
This is the first presidential election since 1928 where an incumbent president or vice president did not run in the primary. And this election could turn into a lawyer’s election.
Barnes & Thornburg partners Craig S. Burkhardt and Richard R. Boykin
USA Today reported in September that the three leading presidential candidates in each of the parties have law degrees, and most have practiced law. Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards; and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney all went to law school.
These campaigns have enlisted the support of the local legal community. Each leading presidential campaign was contacted about recommendations of local lawyers who are volunteering their time. These lawyers went beyond writing checks, and instead volunteer their legal expertise, and fundraising skills to the cause.
Rudy Giuliani
As a sophomore at the University of Illinois, Craig S. Burkhardt was the college campus coordinator for Jim Thompson when he ran for reelection as Illinois governor in 1978.
Working around the state, Burkhardt met with college students, and helped form students-for-Thompson clubs at the major Illinois universities.
Later in life he held different roles, including general counsel for the Illinois Republican Party, and counsel to the Republican Leader of the Illinois House of Representatives.
“Lawyers, by the nature of their profession, are people who are good organizational thinkers. Lawyers traditionally have had a duty to serve not only in providing complimentary legal services, but also in advancing their local community,” said Burkhardt, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “Involvement in politics is a natural means by which those duties can be accomplished.”
The White House appointed Burkhardt in 2003 to serve as chief counsel for technology at the U.S. Department of Commerce. He received the additional and concurrent responsibility in 2005 of heading the office of chief counsel for industry and security, also at the Department of Commerce.
Burkhardt and his wife, Barbara posing with Rudy Giuliani, at an event at the firm
During that time he supervised the World Trade Center building collapse investigation, and developed deeper respect for Giuliani because of his leadership as New York City’s mayor.
He met Giuliani in the late ’80s when the politician gave a speech to the Illinois House Republicans, and he saw him again at the Republican National Convention in 2002.
“I was there when he gave his speech to the Republicans in 2002,” he said. “It was really dramatic. It was really the most impactful speech of the whole convention. At that point of time I thought that if he ever decided to run [for president], he would be someone I would try to be of assistance to.”
The Giuliani campaign contacted Burkhardt around February 2007. His leadership in the Republican National Lawyers Association established him as an organizer of Republican lawyers, which, he said, could be why the campaign wanted his help.
Now a national vice-chair of Lawyers for Rudy, he helps provide policy advice to the campaign and recruits other lawyers. He’s provided his ideas to the campaign in areas like climate change and election law.
As Midwest chair of Lawyers for Rudy, he has responsibility for helping form, and run the Lawyers for Rudy groups in the Midwest.
“I really believe that it’s an obligation for citizens to identify and promote those candidates that they think would do a good job in political office because it furthers the country, and also enhances the strength of our political system,” he said. “We need good people in politics. Lawyers are privileged to have received their legal education, and are particularly obligated to get involved in the political system.”
While Winston & Strawn Chairman Dan Webb regularly gets involved in local and state politics, he never really participated in presidential politics.
But he has known Giuliani for years. When Giuliani was U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, they became friends. While they haven’t stayed close, Webb said he admired his leadership as mayor, especially during Sept. 11.
Webb now helps raise money for Giuliani’s campaign, and is a member of a national advisory board that offers advice on legal and judicial issues. He gave guidance on the selection of judges, and court system reform. He recently joined Giuliani in Iowa and campaigned with him for the day.
“I honestly believe this nation is at a crossroads, both domestically, and in terms of foreign affairs,” Webb said. “Whoever we elect has to be a true, strong, trusted leader.”
Hillary Clinton
Richard R. Boykin, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg, attended a meeting this summer in Washington D.C. with Clinton and about 10 other people.
Those who attended were undecided about which presidential candidate to support.
Boykin asked Clinton about the state of black men in the United States, and talked about the incarceration rates, health care, and education issues in the black community.
He enjoyed the meeting, and met again with her about a month later. He eventually agreed to help her campaign.
Now the Seventh Congressional District coordinator for the Clinton campaign, he oversees a staff of about 300 volunteers who are encouraging district-wide support for Clinton. He’s also a member of the campaign’s Illinois finance team and Illinois steering committee.
“I’m coordinating all the activities for the seventh district for Clinton,” he said. “It covers a pretty good geographic area, and I’m obviously working with some talented people who will be assisting in the effort of turning this out for Hillary.”
This is not his first political involvement. As an undergraduate at Central State University in Ohio in 1988, he supported the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s run for the presidency, and participated in a group that rallied student support for Jackson.
He volunteered on both of President Clinton’s presidential campaigns. He was U.S. Rep. Danny Davis’ chief of staff from 1997 to 2006, and his finance chair from 2004 to 2006.
Growing up in the Englewood community, Boykin said, “I would constantly see inequalities with respect to law enforcement and the way they treated people in the community. Law is something I want to use as a tool to actually change the world and make things a little bit better,” he said.
“My dad, at an early age I would see him every morning reading the newspaper and looking at the news. I sort of got inspired. The guy who really inspired me in politics is the late Harold Washington. He really galvanized me and motivated me. I really liked what he was doing in terms of trying to turn the city around.”
Boykin introduces Hillary Clinton at a firm reception honoring the senator.
Lee Miller, joint chief executive officer of DLA Piper, became involved in politics as a student at Georgetown University, but drifted away from it over the years.
Two of his friends encouraged him to get involved in politics again, he said.
Miller attended several dinners where Clinton was present, and developed tremendous respect for her. He now co-chairs a lawyers committee that tries to enlist other lawyers’ support for Clinton.
“I think it is important for people to be involved in this election cycle,” Miller said. “It is very much a bi-partisan commitment in the firm, and it’s really a personal commitment.
“The firm supports it because it is important that national and global firms like ours are tied to the community locally, nationally, and globally. We look at it as a matter of social responsibility.”
Fred Thompson
James J. Stamos said lawyers have the ability to offer their expertise to political campaigns, without sacrificing too much of their time.
Volunteering on a campaign gives people a more concrete way to be part of the process than just writing a check, said Stamos, a partner at Stamos & Trucco.
Stamos was one of the lawyers who helped manage the anti-fraud vote effort in 1983 for Richard M. Daley’s mayoral campaign.
Each lawyer supervised five wards where they feared voter fraud could occur, he said. He would help with similar efforts in later campaigns in the ’80s.
“It was actually a great thrill, and we probably succeeded in making Harold Washington mayor,” he said, referring to the 1983 election.
He participated in John Glenn’s presidential run in 1984 as a counsel to the campaign, and worked on Joe Biden’s and Bob Kerrey’s campaigns in the ’80s and early ’90s, respectively.
He assists Thompson’s campaign with the management of its petition drive. But he said he is only one person among many people who are helping.
Illinois is a very difficult state for a presidential candidate to get on the ballot, Stamos said.
And petitions are very easy to do incorrectly, unless experienced people assist with the process. The State Board of Elections is also very helpful, he said.
When asked what he wants to accomplish by volunteering, he said, “I hope I help my candidate win. That’s really it.”
Barack Obama
Bob Rivkin said many lawyers are inspired to get involved in something greater than themselves, and the day-to-day activities of their careers.
“I think a lot of folks of my generation, I’m in my 40s, became lawyers not to become a specialist in corporate debt, or bankruptcy, or even intellectual property, but to serve some larger mission that history and the U.S. has shown lawyers have been able to serve,” said Rivkin, a vice president and deputy general counsel for Aon Corp.
He and his wife have known Obama and his wife, Michelle, since the early ’90s, and they’ve supported the politician since his first campaign for public office.
He now serves on Obama’s national finance committee, and helped set up some of the campaign’s policy development groups. He and other Obama supporters plan to head to Iowa around New Year’s to gear up for the Jan. 3 caucus.
The campaign has a good professional staff that must deal not only with its marquee issues, but also the issues of the day and sometimes make rapid responses, Rivkin said.
“But that leaves a lot of issues that [Obama] will need to deal with, and there are not enough resources to deal with them solely by his internal staff,” he said. “The campaign has set up a whole series of policy committees.”
Kirkland & Ellis Senior Partner Jack S. Levin does not align himself with a party, but instead chooses candidates with a strong intellect, good judgment, and experience.
When Levin was on the Harvard Law School Visiting Committee, he met and talked with Obama, who was then attending Harvard. Alumni serving on the committee don’t typically interact with students, but people were talking about Obama’s skills, he said.
Their paths crossed again when they both taught at the University of Chicago.
And as a state senator, Obama sponsored bills designed to bring more venture capital and entrepreneurial business to the state.
When the Illinois Venture Capital Association hosted a dinner and gave Levin a lifetime achievement award, Obama presented the award to Levin because they both attended Harvard and were on the Harvard Law Review.
Levin later agreed to support Obama’s U.S. Senate run.
“I gave fundraisers at the law firm, and my home,” Levin said. “In those days it was very comical. In those days, I could invite 100 people, and we were lucky to get 50 to come because nobody had ever heard of Barack Obama. He was the unknown guy with the funny name.”
When Obama announced he was running for president, Levin agreed to serve on his finance committee, and he offers policy advice to the campaign.
“All of this is not because he is a Democrat,” he said. “All of this is because I think he is the best candidate, by far, for this job. I reserve the right to support Democrats, Republicans, or Independents - whoever I believe is the best. Neither party has a monopoly on intelligence and ability.
“Look at the number of candidates on both the Democratic and Republican sides. It is shocking what a free-for-all it is. It is very hard for the public to see the talent. Amidst the tremendous clutter, it is hard to pick out the few shining stars.”
Mayer Brown Partner John Schmidt met Obama in late 1991 when Obama ran a voter registration drive that focused on the minority community. Schmidt chaired the drive’s financial efforts.
Schmidt supported him during each of his political campaigns, and now helps with fundraising as a member of this campaign’s national finance committee. He also co-chairs the campaign’s national lawyers committee.
The first political campaign he got involved in was Gene McCarthy’s 1968 presidential campaign. He also assisted Paul Simon’s presidential run in 1988, and in 1992 co-chaired the Illinois finance committee for Bill Clinton’s campaign.
“It is a satisfying experience to be supporting somebody you believe in,” he said.
“It’s an absolutely unique office in this country. You have only one national office holder. I think the president has more impact on national life than any other single public office holder by a long shot.”
Mitt Romney
Kirkland Partner Richard Porter decided to help raise money for Romney’s presidential run, but he said he doesn’t hold any illusions that he plays an important advisory role in his campaign.
“The reality is that presidential campaigns are actually each a small business,” Porter said. “There are never more than a few people who work closely with the candidate or who have any significant influence over the direction of the campaign.”
Prior to this campaign, he worked for President George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign as the chief domestic policy writer.
After he won, Porter served at the Treasury, and then as special assistant to Bush and executive secretary of the Domestic Policy Council from 1990 to 1991. He also was counselor to Vice President Dan Quayle from 1992 to 1993.
He and several members of his firm helped Romney in 1994 when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, and some of Porter’s fellow partners work with Bain Capital, which Romney co-founded.
“I still feel it is really important to get the right people in office, even though my expectation for how much the world is going to change is relatively low,” Porter said.
“We live in a dangerous world, and it is essential that we get people in office who will keep our country safe and won’t mess up the economy in the process.”
Ty Fahner, a partner and former chair of Mayer Brown, said he decided a couple months ago to help rally support and raise money for Romney’s campaign.
Two friends of his - Terry Graunke, a principal at Lake Capital, and Dan Rutherford, a state senator - help run the campaign and encouraged him to support Romney.
“I suppose that I spend maybe 10 to 15 hours a week raising money, not only for Gov. Romney, but also for the Illinois Republican Party because I am the finance chairman of the Illinois Republican Party,” he said. “So I wear two different hats.”
Fahner said he’s attended every Republican National Convention since 1980, except for one because he was involved in a trial at the same time.
“The stakes are so big these days,” Fahner said. “Everything that touches a lawyer’s life, from pro bono to health care to representation of corporations, you want to know how the person leading the country feels about all of this because they are going to set the tone.
“I think that everyone should be involved. If they want to stand up and say what’s right or wrong with our country, then they should be involved.”
Joe Biden
Todd A. Smith, a name partner of Power Rogers & Smith, has helped Biden’s different campaigns, off and on, for about 20 years.
Now co-chair of Biden’s national finance committee, Smith said, raising money can be challenging with the number of candidates, and the media’s focus on certain politicians.
Involved in politics since the ’70s, he volunteered for State Sen. John Cullerton’s state representative campaign in 1978, and went door-to-door handing out literature. And in 2004 he knocked on doors in support of former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, who was running for reelection.
Smith said participating in campaigns continues to be an exciting experience.
“If you are going to have any input beyond your vote, maybe actually be heard by these folks, ask them questions, get them to commit on issues, find out where they stand, and maybe get them to think twice,” Smith said, “you have to be involved beyond your vote.”
John D. Cooney, a partner at Cooney & Conway, got to know Biden in 2004 when the U.S. Senate’s judiciary committee wanted to pass a bill that Cooney believed would hurt his clients who suffer from asbestos-related injuries.
As a member of the committee, Biden spoke out against aspects of the bill during committee hearings and on the floor of the Senate, Cooney said. And he introduced an amendment to the bill.
Cooney said he’s been a supporter of Biden’s run for the presidency from the very beginning.
When he was considering running, Cooney and about four other people met with Biden at his Delaware home and talked about the philosophical aspects and practical realities of running for president.
He is raising money for Biden’s campaign, and reaching out to lawyers nationwide and telling them about the candidate.
“I think it is unbelievable that any lawyer is not involved in politics, regardless of their politics,” he said.
“We’ve chosen as our profession the study of law, and the practice of law. To not be involved in the process that makes the law seems to be preposterous,” he said.
“Who knows better than lawyers how the law affects people? Who has better insight than those who have seen the law in action?”
John McCain
Winston & Strawn Partner Rich Williamson has been a personal friend of McCain’s for about 20 years.
Williamson provides McCain’s campaign with advice on foreign policy issues. He, for example, recently spoke with him about Sudan and Darfur. And he is running as a delegate for McCain.
“Like any presidential campaign, there are ups and downs and unexpected twists,” Williamson said. “But we are still in the opening act. It is a marathon, not a sprint.”
Williamson held numerous positions, including serving as Ambassador and U.S. Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs; and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs during the Ronald Reagan administration.
He was also chair of the Illinois Republican Party.
Lawyers are involved in the narrative of the nation, Williamson said, and “I think who the leader of the free world is, particularly now at this time with terrorist threats and the challenges from Iran’s nuclear breakout, is important not only for me but for my children, and it will be important for their children’s children.”
Around the water cooler
December 18, 2007
My first blog
Hi all, my name is Olivia Clarke and I will be one of Chicago Lawyer’s bloggers. I am also a reporter for the magazine and I welcome all your ideas and suggestions for future story ideas.
In addition to searching for story ideas, I am going to try to also discuss current events, Chicago happenings and movies. I want to provide members of the legal community with a place to talk about lighter topics as they wait for that next call or client meeting.
I recently wrote about lawyers volunteering their time, expertise and fundraising skills to presidential campaigns. I am looking for members of the legal community who would like to share their stories about volunteering their time to help different politicians, and the enjoyment they got from those experiences. You can share those stories in the comment or discussion section of this blog.