tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post1285505016370797422..comments2022-11-27T00:31:34.653-08:00Comments on not Jennifer Aniston: Fond FarewellLeilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10177207713697410544noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-41234501309266247102007-04-02T09:53:00.000-07:002007-04-02T09:53:00.000-07:00So what? If the corporation itself is bad, it nee...So what? If the corporation itself is bad, it needs to go. Good behavior is a condition of the privilege of doing business as a corporation; it has been so since the days of Queen Elizabeth I.<BR/><BR/>If your concern is the welfare of the honest employees, bear in mind that they can and will find new jobs. Here', we're talking about a law firm dissolving. I haven't exactly noticed a shortage of lawyers that are ready, willing, and able to pick up the business and talented personnel shed off by their competitors, whether during good times or bad.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-21583221978609365252007-04-01T18:22:00.000-07:002007-04-01T18:22:00.000-07:00Why "appropriately so?" Even if a very large corp...Why "appropriately so?" Even if a very large corporation has such a policy in place, it may still be the case that most of its employees were doing nothing illegal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-36730753946032649112007-04-01T00:36:00.000-07:002007-04-01T00:36:00.000-07:00T.S., felony convictions for entity defendants fre...T.S., felony convictions for entity defendants frequently (always?) mean revocation of the corporate franchise. Those are hard to get; the prosecution must prove not just that there were some bad apples in the bunch but rather that there was a policy in place that was intended to violate a law. Enron would have loved to have argued that Ken Lay and his buddies should have taken the rap and the company allowed to restructure and resume operations. But there was no love from the courts there, and appropriately so.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-82149033564330147352007-03-31T20:54:00.000-07:002007-03-31T20:54:00.000-07:00You're too kind. That wasn't a fascinating respon...You're too kind. That wasn't a fascinating response.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for sticking it to corporate defendants who deserve it, but in this case, or that of Arhur Andersen or Milberg Weiss, it's a little hard for me to believe that the wrongdoing warrants a death sentence for the whole firm.<BR/><BR/>t.s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-18601530915440946692007-03-30T22:23:00.000-07:002007-03-30T22:23:00.000-07:00Fascinating response. I wasn't not posting my firm...Fascinating response. I wasn't not posting my firm's name to spare it any sort of embarrassment. As you might imagine, it has had all of that that can be had. I avoided mentioning its name because I used to work there, and I didn't particularly want my personal blog to come up on random searches of its name. But because you want to push this, I note that Sidley was a codefendant with Jenkens, so if it is alarming for you to have its name mentioned in the same breath as Jenkens, you might want to do a bit of introspection. Because "Jenkens" could have just have easily been synonymous with "Sidley". Nothing that I have said is controversial or sanderous. They all did it. That is not in dispute. Sidley and Shearman are merely examples. There are more.Leilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10177207713697410544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36929138.post-90480929899827461852007-03-30T19:53:00.000-07:002007-03-30T19:53:00.000-07:00If you didn't include Jenkens & Gilchrist's name i...If you didn't include Jenkens & Gilchrist's name in order to prevent this tripe from popping up on Google searches - why did you include disparaging and unfounded allegations against Sidley and S&S? Perhaps a sign of the lack of judgment your old firm relied upon to its ultimate detriment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com