Kevin Genirs, formerly with Lehman Bros. and now Global General Counsel, Investment Banking, Barclays Capital, was a keynote speaker at AML’s LegalTech West. He was reminiscing on some lessons from the demise of Lehman Bros. Several of his comments struck me, in particular:
He set the stage by commenting on a statue that is in the lobby of the Moody’s Building where he worked. It portrays a farmer and a blacksmith shaking hands with the comment, "Credit: Man’s Confidence in Man." This is similar to the cowboys shaking hands on the prairie which we photographed during our 2011 trip through Oklahoma. The point is well-taken. Without the confidence that life will proceed as reasonably expected, we have chaos … and no legal documents are strong enough to withstand such chaos. That is why the cowboys’ handshake resonates so dramatically.
26,000 Lehman employees lost their jobs; $370 Billion of claims were settled for just $.20 on the dollar. Eight books have already been written on the subject. From 1930 to 1997, housing prices increased .7% per year. From 1998 to 2006, housing prices increased 8% per year. And the world thought this would continue forever. But, 25% of housing mortgages defaulted; the securitization market dried up; and there were massive writedowns of asset values.
The problem was not Lehman’s alone, however, as we learned later. The problem was systemic. For example, credit was loosened; one hardly had to qualify in order to get credit. Short term credit was used for long term assets, and this created part of the problem. While some complain about too much regulation, we took the training wheels off of our financial system and chaos resulted.
This resonates for me in light of my mantra that lines of credit should not be used for partners’ compensation. Partners, as equity holders, should be the last ones to be paid, not the first.
Genirs closed by quoting three favorite commentaries:
Galbraith: History counts for so little in financial affairs.
Greenspan: We swing from fear to euphoria and back very quickly.
Keynes: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
And, citing The Black Swan, unlikely is not the same as impossible.
Your staff reporters, including Jennifer Smith, seem fixated on the Dewey law firm and its challenges. While one or two such articles would be of interest to both lawyers and your general readership, I suggest that recent articles have suggested nothing new and merely seem like “kicking a dead horse,” or worse, merely filling space in your paper.
Dewey highlights the unfortunate interplay of bad luck (the Great Recession and unexpected change in our economic health) and poor management (failure to anticipate alternative scenarios). Once again, it is confirmed that law practice is a business. As I’ve been saying since 1995 when I received the registered mark for The Business of Law®, law practice is a business. Yes, it’s a profession AND also a business, a service business. Dewey & LeBoeuf confirms this as does the former chair, Tower Snow, of the now defunct Brobeck law firm, who said law is subject to the same economics as every other business and profession.
Among other challenges facing Dewey are: i) the “bleeding” of lawyers leaving the firm a few at a time until the firm will face hemorrhaging, ii) unfunded pensions that will be a drain on the firm assets and future revenue, thus setting up vicious generation warfare in the future, and iii) debt from their expanded lines of credit. Of course, none of these challenges are fatal in themselves, but are compounded by virtue of management in whom the majority of the firm has lost confidence.
Your reporters should give Dewey some space to work out their problems or, perhaps even better, talk about the issues (not the personalities or the law firms specifically) that the firm is facing. That would be interesting to your readers because it not only applies to the legal community, but to all of your readers in the companies they operate.
Have we lost accountability? Have we lost taking personal responsibility for our own actions. Some in the political arena are saying that government has little or no legitimate role in our lives. We need to restore caveat emptor and all will be o.k. again. While we may have more government involvement n some areas than we’d like, we probably have too little in other areas. And if we truly had caveat emptor all over, we would soon have anarchy and civil unrest.
In one area, however, this issue was brought home to me in a very different light. A former military man spoke on television recently (as well as written a book) about the lack of responsibility of the American people. He said this in the context of so many of our troops returning home with maladies, who need treatment of one sort or another, and who need jobs … and their needs are not being met. His assertion is that the American public can ignore these issues because we are not involved in the war. Yes, we pay for it … maybe. But, that’s it.
In the past, there was a draft. If we went to war, the draft increased and many of the people we knew would be called up. Today, we have a professional army and so our daily lives are not disturbed. In the past, when we went to war, there was a special assessment or increased tax to pay for the war. When we went to war in Iraq, there was no such increase. In fact, taxes were lowered, a significant factor in our current deficit discussions.
The point is that we’ve lost touch with our personal responsibility and accountability … and we need to get it back. Not sure how to do this, but we need to have this discussion. Perhaps the forthcoming political debate will address this issue. Just my $.02 worth.
Judge Lippman, Chief Judge of the New York Appeals Court, announced a pro bono requirement to gain admission to the New York Bar. Every new lawyer will have to prove their performance of 50 hours of pro bono practice before being admitted to the New York state bar. Mandatory pro bono is now a reality in New York.
He said, "If pro bono is a core value of our profession, and it is—and if we aspire for all practicing attorneys to devote a meaningful portion of their time to public service, and they should—these ideals ought to be instilled from the start, when one first aspires to be a member of the profession."
His first error of judgement, in my opinion, is to conclude that pro bono is a "core value" of the legal profession. While many lawyers "give" many hours freely of their time and expertise, it is not the essence or "core value" of the legal profession. This has been substantiated many times over when bar associations call on their members to provide free services for low and moderate income people. Many do step up to the plate. But, not all. Thus, it’s obviously not a core value of the profession.
He then said that "We think that if you want that privilege, that honor of practicing law in the state of New York…then you are going to have to demonstrate that you believe in our values." He is really saying that if you want to practice law in NY, you better meet my values. Interesting that he says that practicing law is a privilege, not a right. Seems as though we’re taking a test to get our driving license. Driving a car is a privilege and in order to get you on the streets, you need certain requirements. I guess Judge Lippman equates getting a law license with a driver’s license.
Why does this new requirement apply only to new lawyers? Why doesn’t this requirement apply to all lawyers in NY, even those who have been practicing for a few years? Judge Lippman’s excuse for this discriminatory practice is that existing lawyers’ practices are very diverse and some lawyers already are having difficulty earning enough money to put food on the table. Thus, they should be excused from this requirement. The real reason is that the Judge would have a rebellion on his hands if he tried to spread the requirement to all present lawyers in the state.