Sunday 23 August 2009
The Owl as a law firm symbol....but not only
by Former Senior Partner
Shortly after the good-omen encounter with my (now former) partners, in early 2002, we all had a heated but funny debate about the owl, the symbol of our law firm. A dark green one, to be more precise, and not very stern looking. That owl represented our collective wisdom, endurance, experience. It haunted me to the point that I started revisiting fifteen century Dutch paintings to find something I knew was there, but maybe misplaced in my memory. I re-read about owls and other creatures, everything from Poe to Campbell to Eco, in search of the perfect owl to match the symbol on our business card. It finally dawned on me within the suitably gloomy walls of the Prado museum a couple of years later. The owl was the symbol of inner demons we've conquered. A depth more than the other-worldly, more powerful than hope, more durable than the paintings I was staring at.
Jeroen Bosch, a.k.a. Hieronymus Bosch. It all made sense, owl and all. His fifteenth century metaphors were so telling about today's world. How could a provincial Dutch painter be so visionary, so timeless - and depict certain owls in his work, for us to discover and compare centuries later. It all came together - my first ever e-mail address, hieronymus @.....; my elementary school nickname. I had all along believed it was the name of the Latin translator of the Bible, but in hindsight it's another Hieronymus we should take a closer look at, and find the right owl to look up to.
Today, no doubt, the right owl looks beyond darkness and leads to light through its wisdom. One cannot prevent all evil but one must see beyond it and overcome it. Don't delve too much in its laird. And resist temptation. The garden of delights is short lived.
Shortly after the good-omen encounter with my (now former) partners, in early 2002, we all had a heated but funny debate about the owl, the symbol of our law firm. A dark green one, to be more precise, and not very stern looking. That owl represented our collective wisdom, endurance, experience. It haunted me to the point that I started revisiting fifteen century Dutch paintings to find something I knew was there, but maybe misplaced in my memory. I re-read about owls and other creatures, everything from Poe to Campbell to Eco, in search of the perfect owl to match the symbol on our business card. It finally dawned on me within the suitably gloomy walls of the Prado museum a couple of years later. The owl was the symbol of inner demons we've conquered. A depth more than the other-worldly, more powerful than hope, more durable than the paintings I was staring at.
Jeroen Bosch, a.k.a. Hieronymus Bosch. It all made sense, owl and all. His fifteenth century metaphors were so telling about today's world. How could a provincial Dutch painter be so visionary, so timeless - and depict certain owls in his work, for us to discover and compare centuries later. It all came together - my first ever e-mail address, hieronymus @.....; my elementary school nickname. I had all along believed it was the name of the Latin translator of the Bible, but in hindsight it's another Hieronymus we should take a closer look at, and find the right owl to look up to.
Today, no doubt, the right owl looks beyond darkness and leads to light through its wisdom. One cannot prevent all evil but one must see beyond it and overcome it. Don't delve too much in its laird. And resist temptation. The garden of delights is short lived.
Monday 17 August 2009
Recounting Time
By Mioara
Time is not something that can be perceived as such, in its supposed capacity of an in itself identity holder, as some sort of immutable receptacle that is to be filled with various things; quite the opposite, it gains its identity depending on the things that fill it, it flows differently with respect to the relevance and the sense of the things that roam through it. Thus, accounting time first implies its decantation that will indicate it to us, that will enable us to guess it as a relation between a maximum and a minimum.
Its maximum consists in the main hypostasis in which we assume it, in which it enters our lives, namely as death… Thus, death becomes the pre-eminent form in which time shows itself to us and, as such, any evocation of time is an evocation of death, any time is for us, in the end, a time of death.
The minimum, on the other hand, appears as a time breakdown that is to show us, only to indicate to us without making it explicit, the fact that it does have an identity in itself, hypostasis which is defined by the recurrence. In this respect, I believe, it is said that when one makes the same things everyday many days in a row, it is not that a number of days have passed, but, in fact, only a single one- the standstill-present as a death of time. More explicitly, just as we get to understand that an instrument-object could have an identity in itself, that it could be something else than we intended to make out of it only when it is broken, becoming an inert thing of which we cannot make any use but into which we keep running, time allows itself to be guessed in its capacity of simple and inert presence only when it becomes broken, when it isn’t really flowing, namely in the shape of the standstill-present, of the perpetual recurrence.
What does then boredom mean? Perhaps it would be fairer to say of the moments that bore us not that they take to long but quite the opposite, that they do not take at all, that in their respect time doesn’t flow at all. The anxious waiting form them to pass is actually not a hunger for deeds but a hunger for moments, it is not an attempt at getting to events but one at getting to time.
Therefore between the time of death and the death of time it allows itself to be decanted, guessed and thus accounted.
Time is not something that can be perceived as such, in its supposed capacity of an in itself identity holder, as some sort of immutable receptacle that is to be filled with various things; quite the opposite, it gains its identity depending on the things that fill it, it flows differently with respect to the relevance and the sense of the things that roam through it. Thus, accounting time first implies its decantation that will indicate it to us, that will enable us to guess it as a relation between a maximum and a minimum.
Its maximum consists in the main hypostasis in which we assume it, in which it enters our lives, namely as death… Thus, death becomes the pre-eminent form in which time shows itself to us and, as such, any evocation of time is an evocation of death, any time is for us, in the end, a time of death.
The minimum, on the other hand, appears as a time breakdown that is to show us, only to indicate to us without making it explicit, the fact that it does have an identity in itself, hypostasis which is defined by the recurrence. In this respect, I believe, it is said that when one makes the same things everyday many days in a row, it is not that a number of days have passed, but, in fact, only a single one- the standstill-present as a death of time. More explicitly, just as we get to understand that an instrument-object could have an identity in itself, that it could be something else than we intended to make out of it only when it is broken, becoming an inert thing of which we cannot make any use but into which we keep running, time allows itself to be guessed in its capacity of simple and inert presence only when it becomes broken, when it isn’t really flowing, namely in the shape of the standstill-present, of the perpetual recurrence.
What does then boredom mean? Perhaps it would be fairer to say of the moments that bore us not that they take to long but quite the opposite, that they do not take at all, that in their respect time doesn’t flow at all. The anxious waiting form them to pass is actually not a hunger for deeds but a hunger for moments, it is not an attempt at getting to events but one at getting to time.
Therefore between the time of death and the death of time it allows itself to be decanted, guessed and thus accounted.
Tuesday 11 August 2009
"Sonia Sotomayor - an american story"
gathered by Mioara
"sources Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine"
"Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: "She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a "fearless and effective prosecutor.". She was cocounsel in the "Tarzan Murderer" case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that "she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund."
"sources Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine"
"Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: "She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a "fearless and effective prosecutor.". She was cocounsel in the "Tarzan Murderer" case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that "she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund."
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Iago’s letter of intention and Munchausen’s CV
By Mioara
An employment agreement and work relationships are built upon trust, honesty and liability. What protection do you, as either employer or employee, have when candidates apply for vacancy, one gets the job, and you further discover that his CV was a false and misinterpreting statement of himself?
At first impression the most affected are the work colleagues of this new employee. They have to deal with expectations other than those declared, they have to tolerate claims on their own work and finally they have to deliver results and do the job for this new colleague many times.
Years ago, a law firm used to recruit lawyers based on a sort of letter of intention. The said letter was required to be in the English language about an interesting topic and was supposed to be elaborated by the applicant himself. We received great pieces of composition and narrative work on interesting topics: “devil’s advocate”, “age gap”, “football”, “human rights”, etc. The phrases were articulated with rich vocabulary and game words on edge; anyway, good proficiency in English language, no doubt. Within few days from their employment the rich vocabulary vanished and phrases were far from being articulated.
Same firm used to distribute specialized legal work and coordination of important assignments, such as project finance, energy transactions, clean development mechanism, banking transactions, etc. to new recruits or employee with glit CVs, in defiance of general opinion or annual survey. At deadline a senior had to cope with the bad work and redo drafts and documentation in a proper manner. Within one year the firm lost 4 seniors, each with expertise on a specific area.
Moreover, the firm offered trainings and seminars not based on merits and results, but on a strange principle of let’s avoid discussions why him instead of me?. Costly but silenced, honestly justifying with facts and results on “why him?” was considered rather punitive, you cannot say to someone that he is not working properly and still has a long way in learning. Better be good! Being good doesn’t mean that we are stupid and we cannot assess someone’s work and professional capabilities.
Other law firm “sold” me its recruitment policies as fair and fresh, not subject to any interventions, discriminatory assessment and bla, bla, bla, so why not apply on their marketing department. False, the marketing vacancy was only for people prepared in legal marketing. My guess was they would hire someone from a London based law firm, as in Romania we learned on the way about this marketing and copied international models. They hired someone, not from London, and within few months the administrative department supported with elaboration and preparation of CVs, pitches and offers the well prepared marketing department. I wrongly understood it was not about delivering marketing content, it was about marketing noise, internal and external outsourcing. Also, the fair recruitment policy was subject to siblings’ relationships, clients’ due interests and closed chart system. So no matter what you were doing you had to stick with your nominated position, as it was not about content, it was about the wrap. They even wrapped a former senior partner with whom they supposedly merged and then catalyzed into a takeover that quickly burned, into a senior associate for more than a year. Again, it was not about the achievment content, it was about the precondition of achievement.
Two formal partners who set up their own firm are practicing differentiated human resources approach: recruitment upon interpersonal relationships, work and networking upon their mood, work reimbursed in money but despised in words, disproportionate job intake, fluctuating outcome valuation, preferential tackling and so on. So, why you would want to work for them? for friendship, interpersonal skills, prior work, payback, professional environment and feedback, and last but not least for money. Yes, for money, only if worth. In this case there is no need of CV, it’s about the mood.
All of us have been tempted to put fictitious qualifications or other partial false information in our CV. I sinned too. Even though I did not work hard for some of my cv’s credentials, I dared to insert them as my best products. As I lost confidence in my work potential my CV became a rude boast about myself, an arrogant listing of factotum and makeup achievements of more than 4 pages: too much!!!. The truth is that those achievements were part of a wider team effort. Another truth is that I designed untrue and glamorous make-up Cvs for many of my formal colleagues. Some of them are fortunate to survive based on that penmade armoury. I wonder for how long? Now, my CV has no more than two layout pages because I learned that: “there is a significant difference between arrogance and confidence”.
An employment agreement and work relationships are built upon trust, honesty and liability. What protection do you, as either employer or employee, have when candidates apply for vacancy, one gets the job, and you further discover that his CV was a false and misinterpreting statement of himself?
At first impression the most affected are the work colleagues of this new employee. They have to deal with expectations other than those declared, they have to tolerate claims on their own work and finally they have to deliver results and do the job for this new colleague many times.
Years ago, a law firm used to recruit lawyers based on a sort of letter of intention. The said letter was required to be in the English language about an interesting topic and was supposed to be elaborated by the applicant himself. We received great pieces of composition and narrative work on interesting topics: “devil’s advocate”, “age gap”, “football”, “human rights”, etc. The phrases were articulated with rich vocabulary and game words on edge; anyway, good proficiency in English language, no doubt. Within few days from their employment the rich vocabulary vanished and phrases were far from being articulated.
Same firm used to distribute specialized legal work and coordination of important assignments, such as project finance, energy transactions, clean development mechanism, banking transactions, etc. to new recruits or employee with glit CVs, in defiance of general opinion or annual survey. At deadline a senior had to cope with the bad work and redo drafts and documentation in a proper manner. Within one year the firm lost 4 seniors, each with expertise on a specific area.
Moreover, the firm offered trainings and seminars not based on merits and results, but on a strange principle of let’s avoid discussions why him instead of me?. Costly but silenced, honestly justifying with facts and results on “why him?” was considered rather punitive, you cannot say to someone that he is not working properly and still has a long way in learning. Better be good! Being good doesn’t mean that we are stupid and we cannot assess someone’s work and professional capabilities.
Other law firm “sold” me its recruitment policies as fair and fresh, not subject to any interventions, discriminatory assessment and bla, bla, bla, so why not apply on their marketing department. False, the marketing vacancy was only for people prepared in legal marketing. My guess was they would hire someone from a London based law firm, as in Romania we learned on the way about this marketing and copied international models. They hired someone, not from London, and within few months the administrative department supported with elaboration and preparation of CVs, pitches and offers the well prepared marketing department. I wrongly understood it was not about delivering marketing content, it was about marketing noise, internal and external outsourcing. Also, the fair recruitment policy was subject to siblings’ relationships, clients’ due interests and closed chart system. So no matter what you were doing you had to stick with your nominated position, as it was not about content, it was about the wrap. They even wrapped a former senior partner with whom they supposedly merged and then catalyzed into a takeover that quickly burned, into a senior associate for more than a year. Again, it was not about the achievment content, it was about the precondition of achievement.
Two formal partners who set up their own firm are practicing differentiated human resources approach: recruitment upon interpersonal relationships, work and networking upon their mood, work reimbursed in money but despised in words, disproportionate job intake, fluctuating outcome valuation, preferential tackling and so on. So, why you would want to work for them? for friendship, interpersonal skills, prior work, payback, professional environment and feedback, and last but not least for money. Yes, for money, only if worth. In this case there is no need of CV, it’s about the mood.
All of us have been tempted to put fictitious qualifications or other partial false information in our CV. I sinned too. Even though I did not work hard for some of my cv’s credentials, I dared to insert them as my best products. As I lost confidence in my work potential my CV became a rude boast about myself, an arrogant listing of factotum and makeup achievements of more than 4 pages: too much!!!. The truth is that those achievements were part of a wider team effort. Another truth is that I designed untrue and glamorous make-up Cvs for many of my formal colleagues. Some of them are fortunate to survive based on that penmade armoury. I wonder for how long? Now, my CV has no more than two layout pages because I learned that: “there is a significant difference between arrogance and confidence”.
Friday 31 July 2009
The Prime of Success
By Former Senior Partner
As we ponder the gap between tiny and the largest known prime, tiny all of a sudden doesn't seem so irrelevant any more. A sequence of details and routines, anything goes, just as long as you don't turn into Anonymous Lawyer or greedyassociates or any given number of herd-like followers, of me-toos. 'Cause success is your only m f option, failure is not. You've got to lead and to deliver, there is no beating around the bush here, do or die - hard, I may add, but when you've reached the top the only way is down. So, given the choice, Job didn't seem to have had it that rough after all, a leper or two, loneliness, what's that compared to the voice of one's conscience nag-nag-nagging you into submission in quantum leaps of faith until such time you've found your true north. Thrive in the embrace of perfection, not in details but in your legacy, round and wholesome, definitely there, like the next, as of yet undiscovered prime, but you're just not there yet.
As we ponder the gap between tiny and the largest known prime, tiny all of a sudden doesn't seem so irrelevant any more. A sequence of details and routines, anything goes, just as long as you don't turn into Anonymous Lawyer or greedyassociates or any given number of herd-like followers, of me-toos. 'Cause success is your only m f option, failure is not. You've got to lead and to deliver, there is no beating around the bush here, do or die - hard, I may add, but when you've reached the top the only way is down. So, given the choice, Job didn't seem to have had it that rough after all, a leper or two, loneliness, what's that compared to the voice of one's conscience nag-nag-nagging you into submission in quantum leaps of faith until such time you've found your true north. Thrive in the embrace of perfection, not in details but in your legacy, round and wholesome, definitely there, like the next, as of yet undiscovered prime, but you're just not there yet.
Friday 17 July 2009
the Godfather
by Mioara
who is (god) fathering you to grow smallmind and lazy?
My most influential boss taught me the importance of solutions. He is an excellent orator and used to tackle us –secretaries, clients, peers, lawyers and juniors with equal elan. He motivated me to meet the most aggressive deadlines, to provide good and balanced work. He never tolerated any weakness in my work, be it drafting or of administrative nature, his point of view upon me was that I should always achieve better. Thus I learned the importance of hard work. Looking back, I was lucky to have such a boss, but some argue against.
The only thing I’m arguing against is the “godfathering” method of management. Not to be understood as Italian mob methods, but as the Christian way of guiding careers under the softness of doing nothing. I get the impression that the flexible way of working and great level of toleration is wrongly understood. Instead of gladly accepting this way, we should take advantage upon it.
Lesson learned: If you loose your inner enthusiasm in doing your job and still continue, you are choosing mediocrity.
P.S.
I owe much to:
Patricia Osmani – for convincing me that any receptionist can translate;
Oana Firca – for helping me on the way with drafts, translations and pitches;
Simona Popan – for her model;
Eduard Fagaraseanu – for trusting my drafting skills and using my templates ;
Mihai Guia – for co-opting me in legal teams and giving yesterday dead-lines;
Dumitru Rusu – for his professional feedback;
Nelu – for being Nelu;
Gabi – for driving me around;
and
Stef – for tolerating me
who is (god) fathering you to grow smallmind and lazy?
My most influential boss taught me the importance of solutions. He is an excellent orator and used to tackle us –secretaries, clients, peers, lawyers and juniors with equal elan. He motivated me to meet the most aggressive deadlines, to provide good and balanced work. He never tolerated any weakness in my work, be it drafting or of administrative nature, his point of view upon me was that I should always achieve better. Thus I learned the importance of hard work. Looking back, I was lucky to have such a boss, but some argue against.
The only thing I’m arguing against is the “godfathering” method of management. Not to be understood as Italian mob methods, but as the Christian way of guiding careers under the softness of doing nothing. I get the impression that the flexible way of working and great level of toleration is wrongly understood. Instead of gladly accepting this way, we should take advantage upon it.
Lesson learned: If you loose your inner enthusiasm in doing your job and still continue, you are choosing mediocrity.
P.S.
I owe much to:
Patricia Osmani – for convincing me that any receptionist can translate;
Oana Firca – for helping me on the way with drafts, translations and pitches;
Simona Popan – for her model;
Eduard Fagaraseanu – for trusting my drafting skills and using my templates ;
Mihai Guia – for co-opting me in legal teams and giving yesterday dead-lines;
Dumitru Rusu – for his professional feedback;
Nelu – for being Nelu;
Gabi – for driving me around;
and
Stef – for tolerating me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)