UPDATE: From a person of impressive large law firm experience:
Often - especially in large law firms -- partners with diminishing, diminished or little business, but whom the firm wants to keep for various reasons, take on bar association or administrative work at the firm. (The analogy in academia would be to tenured professors who do a lot of “service,” but do not do much research/publishing or active teaching.) There are many factors involved in such career paths (and certainly some highly distinguished lawyers who are truly competent and have significant business also take on such work). For associates, such a path is often (but not always) a sign that there is a problem, whether with the availability of work for that associate, the quality of the work, or otherwise.
MORE:
By way of background, I worked for five years as an associate at a 100 lawyer office of a "large law firm" in the midwest. For the following three years I worked at a bank and became aware of the internal politics of two mid-to-large Chicago firms.
My perceptions of the managing partners at these firms is that do not tend to be "the best" in their field. That is to say, if they are a litigator they are not the best litgator at the firm; if they are a transactional attorney they are not the best transactional attorney at the firm. I think the reason for this is the best litigators tend to be the ones who love it and if you are a managing partner you don't have much time for litigating. My experience was also that managing partners tended to have very good relations with some of the firm's largest clients and/or a strong presence in the community.
The managing partners I was aware of were universally smart though and had many skills which many other lawyers lack. Most notably, while everyone likes to get what they want and many lawyers are good at getting what they want, the managing partners I was aware of were good at getting what they wanted through consensus or the appearance of consensus.
Assuming she has those skills, it would be interesting to see how they translate in a group of nine.
I was unimpressed with none of the managing partners I came to know of. Then again, none of them were nominated to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
HERE'S ANOTHER:
When I see that someone is managing partner, I can be sure of one thing: that person is politically astute and powerful. However, I would never draw any conclusions (based on that fact alone) about that person's pure lawyering ability or intellect.
What does it mean to be politically astute and powerful? It might mean that person has the largest book of business and the firm would fold if he or she left. Therefore, that person has the brute power to get anything he or she wants. Now, it may be the case that the managing partner has the most billings because he or she is the best lawyer in the world and all the clients know it, or it might mean that he or she inherited the book of business from a retired partner who was cultivated through years of sucking up.
The fact of being managing partner might also mean that the person has impressive people skills to unite a group of strong-minded partners. A related phenomenom is the managing partner who is the least objectionable among warring factions within the partnership. Of course, these qualities again say nothing about legal acumen.
Thus, a person can become managing partner for a variety of reasons, some of which may be related to intellect and lawyering skill but some of which have nothing to do with those qualities.
As for the bar activities, I would agree with the poster with "impressive large firm experience." When I see that kind of resume, I adopt a presumption that it may be a negative signal. Now, I would characterize my presumption as "easily rebuttable" because I have known excellent lawyers with significant bar activities. However, I have also known big firm partners who have used such activities to mask the fact of extremely weak abilities.
Bottom line for me? I just don't know enough about the nominee to form any judgments about her lawyering skills or intellect. I think it's admirable and impressive that she was the managing partner of a major firm, but it tells me nothing (without more) about intellect and analytical ability.
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
This an interesting article about the role of women as managing partners. http://www.mcca.com/site/data/magazine/coverstory/0803/managingpartners0803.htm
Key graph:
Pisa estimates that she devotes about 60 percent of her time to management and the remainder to her mergers-and- acquisitions practice. Park rarely practices law anymore, particularly since the firm Pillsbury Madison merged with Winthrop, Stimpson, Putnam & Roberts in 2001, a major administrative undertaking. Similarly, Lagarde says her management duties take 150 percent of her time.
Based primarily on my reading obits (you know the Irish sports pages), it seems to me that managing partners tend to provide the muscle and power (Machiavellian skills) that every large firm needs to be very successful/ profitable.
There are two ways of interpreting the findings via emails, etc.:
(A) In an era where Affirmative Action was just beginning to take root in the US (and certainly before it, the ethos of minority advancement whenever possible), she was bright enough to be hired on in a prestigious law-firm, but perhaps she her staying on was due to tokenism.
(B) Her mind is geared towards the bureaucratic, making her invaluable to the running of law-firms, as AJ Lynch mentioned.
Neither option leave me salivating...
But like a mantra, I will invoke the "We're waiting for the Hearings to begin before passing judgement".
Cheers,
Victoria
I found this on Beldar just now, which migh interest in case no one has linked to it yet:
A Westlaw Romp through Harriet Miers' Record
Cheers,
Victoria
Annyone who has been a manager in business knows that it is quite different from being just a plain old attorney. Managing people and institutions is a lot different than thinking about issues in a back room.
Greg: I would be VERY skeptical of a lawprof nominee, I assure you!
Beldar and others: My question isn't (just) about how good generally a person needs to be to take this career path but about how much this career path shows about a person's capacity to do legal analysis. My hypothesis, which your argument doesn't refute, is that these positions are pursued by those whose skills are in the business management category. I have yet to see any evidence of excellence in the area relevant to the work of the Supreme Court. It's important to recognize that the legal practice she engaged in did not involve much actual practice of law.
Also, Beldar, why are you just promoting Miers like an advocate? What's your motivation?
Beldar: I said being a managing partner and concentrating on the bar association doesn't involve much practice of law. That was not about the aspect of her career in which she did commercial litigation. To reframe the question, if she was such a terrific commercial litigator, why did she move into law firm management and bar association work?
My sense is that the managing partner position and the bar association work are two very different things. While a managing partner obviously doesn't have as much time for the actual practice of law, it still may be the case (as Beldar points out) that Miers got to that position by winning respect both for lawyerly skills and managerial abilities.
The bar association work is different. There are some absolutely top-notch lawyers who spend time on various bar association activities; but I also tend to wonder why someone would be able to spend so much on bar work. (The best practicing lawyers, in my experience, tend to be up to their ears in real work for paying clients.) On the whole, bar association work seems neutral to me -- it doesn't prove or disprove that someone is a good lawyer.
beldar said: "the Court ought to have at least one member drawn from the ranks of practicing lawyers"
Eight trials (four of which she was lead counsel) and arguing seven appeals over thirty years does not rank her high among the ranks of practicing lawyers.
The post hoc justification of Miers is that as a practicing lawyer she has an intimate familiarity with the rules of procedure and trial practice that the SCOTUS oversees. But clearly her area of practice, drew her more to the conference room than the court room. As did her associational, managment, and political acitivities.
Maybe this is OT, but how did she get the White House counsel position?
Beldar: Re service: that's all very nice, but it still underscores my point that her career does not show a person with the relevant abilities and expertise. The question isn't whether she's a good person.
Similarly, your description of how she got her job as counsel to the president shows something other than the relevant skills. Yes, she has personal skills relevant to getting close to those with power. That is not satisfying at all!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा