Two articles by Harriet Miers (is her writing as bad as they say?)

I heard about, and later read, David Brooks article about Harriet Miers' writing titled In Her own Words. It seems she is getting slammed hard for poor writing quality and people are laughing and joking about how terrible it is based on passages quoted by Brooks. I wondered if Brooks had presented only certain passages that were not representative of her actual writing ability. I found two other articles she has written, both for the magazine Texas Lawyer. The first one was written in 1992 when she was President of the Texas Bar. This 1992 article concerned a murder spree in Texas where lawyers and judges were targeted. The second, published in 2000, offered advice, based on Miers' own experience, to law firms considering merger.

Below are both articles in full. These two articles, spaced 8 years apart provide 2000 words of unadulterated writing, including argument, by Miers. You be the judge.

BYLINE: STATE BAR OF TEXAS by Harriet Miers; Harriet Miers is president of the State Bar of Texas and a partner in Dallas' Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.

HIGHLIGHT: Plain and simple, the July 1 Tarrant County shootings were despicable acts -- examples of the worst nature of man. The rest of us are challenged even more to demonstrate the best.

BODY: In the wake of the Fort Worth shooting spree that left two lawyers dead and wo judges wounded, criticism of the justice system, judges and lawyers has flowed. Some viewed the maniacal act of one man as an opportunity to emphasize the failings of the rule of law in our country. Some even suggested the heinous act was the product of frustration shared by many with the manner in which the justice system works.

Such an implication from the Fort Worth occurrence is regrettable, and we as the legal community must protect against misguided or erroneous analysis of the devastating events.

How does a free society prevent a man from climbing to the top of a tower on a university campus and randomly killing whoever is in sight? How does a free society prevent a man from driving a truck into a cafeteria and executing patrons? How does a free society prevent a man from entering a courtroom and opening fire? We are loath to hear the answer to these questions as it comes from our lips, because the suggested solutions usually infringe on precious, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

The assertion by some that the message we should get from the Fort Worth massacre is that there are problems with judges, lawyers and the judicial system is misguided and erroneous. The State Bar of Texas and its lawyers are the first to admit the U.S. justice system has problems and needs improvement, and that they should be leaders in seeking to better the system. But the act of a man who is willing to be judge, jury and firing squad for innocent bystanders teaches no lessons for us about the justice system or citizens' frustrations with it.

We can and should take reasonable steps to minimize the likelihood of similar tragedies occurring in the future. Federal courts have had enhanced safety precautions for years. We know that similar precautions are needed to secure state courthouses. As the lawyers of Texas, we can and should be advocates for adequate security devices and procedures to protect all of the participants in the justice system from a repetition of the Fort Worth slayings.

Many times the push for such precautions is aimed at the criminal courts, but as the Fort Worth case shows, but civil courts have at least as great an interest in courthouse security.

In years of financial stress, talk about increased government spending is unwelcome -- but funds for increased security measures for court safety now will be found. Unfortunately, there had to be a catastrophic event to emphasize the importance of the expenditures.

Judicial appropriations for the State of Texas represent 0.32 percent of the total state appropriations. While money cannot solve all the problems, and many times increased expenditure is a simple but wrong approach to solving problems and face, adequate personnel, space and equipment for the judiciary in Texas are essential if we expect the third branch of government to do its job.

Lawyers and the organized bar should be the chief advocates for proper funding for the judiciary and the justice system. State and local funding for the Texas judicial system is currently inadequate to allow the courts throughout the state to perform as expected by the public.

Punishment of wrongdoers should be swift and sure. Only then can the criminal justice system serve as an effective deterrent. Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty. Again, the lack of adequate resources to support an overburdened criminal justice system looms as a reality. Punishment may come swift and sure in the Fort Worth slayings case because of their notoriety. But we cannot forget the other cases crying for justice languishing in courts throughout Texas and the nation.

All lawyers, not just those involved in the criminal justice system, should have an interest in efforts to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. The State Bar and the Texas Young Lawyers Association conducted 15 hearings across the state concerning pro bono issues. These hearings provided a clear picture that inadequacies exist in the resources available to provide constitutionally required indigent criminal defense.

The hearings also underscored that the lack of resources in some areas of the state not only has a dramatic impact on the courts' performance of all of their obligations, but also unduly burdens the ability of lawyers to maintain a private practice. Lawyers must, in the interest of the administration of justice, be aggressive advocates for increasing the resources available for the representation of indigent defendants.

Additionally, we are reminded that success in fighting crime in our nation is more than treating symptoms. We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.

We lawyers are trained in problem-solving and we have the leadership and other opportunities available to professionals in our society. The two men who died exemplified individuals devoted to their God, their families, their fellow man, their communities and their profession. Speakers in both memorial services, used the very same words: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Our sense of helplessness and inability to understand why tragedies like these have to occur should not cause anyone to attempt to explain Fort Worth shootings as expressions of frustration with judges, lawyers or the justice system. Plain and simple, they are despicable acts -- examples of the worst nature of man. The rest of us are challenged even more to demonstrate the best.

BODY: Avid snow skiers know the feeling that comes from arriving at the bottom of a black diamond slope and looking back at the terrain just covered. Rock climbers have a similar feeling after arriving at the top of a particularly challenging incline and looking down. Successfully merging two firms each with about 200 lawyers (and staff to match) brings similar feelings. Looking back and thinking about the separateness of the two previous organizations and observing a fully combined firm functioning as if the merger was a long time ago brings a sense of accomplishment mixed with relief. As the skiers or rock climbers, then comes the ability to say "that wasn't so bad."

What ensures a safe arrival at the bottom of the slope or the top of the cliff? What makes for a profitable merger and how do you avoid the pitfalls that impair the merged firm's performance? The formula for each firm considering a merger is probably unique to that firm or merger. However, there are some common threads in efforts to maximize profits and avoid pitfalls in any significant merger.

Smart skiers don't start down a black diamond slope without a healthy respect for the task or without being ready. Law firm managers obviously should approach mergers similarly. A successful merger will result from the joinder of firms conditioned to the concept of a merger, managements sensitized to the trauma potential of a merger and a shared vision for the combined firm.

For maximizing profits, both firms considering a merger must be strong and profitable individually. The financial performance of both firms also has to be compatible - close enough that both firms see benefit from the combination. Fear of "dilution" kills many a merger, but fear of "dilution" can be addressed successfully with firms properly matched and with promise of a compensation system based upon "meritocracy."

Losing lawyers and staff harm the merger's possibilities for success. Both groups of partners of the merging firms must arrive at an understanding that "merger pain" is worth the gain. A pitfall for merger efforts is putting the "generals" too far in front of their "troops." Troops not following or following reluctantly spell disaster. Firm leadership must understand the reality of systemic shock to merging institutions. A significant pitfall for any proposed merger is a firm leadership's appearing unconcerned about the toll on lawyers and staff of merger changes.

And, of course, both firms' leadership must articulate a vision to capture the spirits of the vast majority of the partners in each firm. Effective communication becomes key. Lawyers and staff need to know where they stand.

Agreement between merger partners on areas critical to the future of the law firm is essential to provide the roadmap for moving forward. Ingredients for combined success include commitment to client service, professional and personal ethics, quality of work, recruiting as a priority, the culture of the firms and a selfless commitment to the firm, common compensation philosophy, growth, training, management philosophy, community and professional service, and diversity.

Even if a merger appears the right course, determination is important. To continue the skier analogy, mid-slope halting and breaking rhythm can prove a bad mistake. So it is with firm mergers. In proceeding with merger talks, tough issues do come. Once an appropriate merger partner is located and talks begin, determination to see the venture to conclusion makes resolving the tough issues possible. Unsuccessful merger talks aren't helpful to the image of either firm.

Another pitfall to the success of the merger is lack of confidentiality. Premature leaking of the potential merger or details can only unsettle both lawyers and staff and can result in losing people.

Synergy is an overused term these days. However, discerning correctly synergies from a merger and making certain they are achieved maximizes profits in the most remarkable manner. For example, both firms in the Locke Liddell merger had successful energy and oil and gas practices prior to merging. In the year after the merger, the combined firm provided three times the services to clients in this industry than the combined total had done previously. Representation of clients in this industry was appropriately recognized as an opportunity for synergies from the expertise existing in both firms and the ability to cross-sell and attract new clients. It worked.

Presence in Houston with greater resources, presence in New Orleans and greater presence in Dallas and Austin also creates synergies that have enabled the combined firm to maximize services provided to existing clients as well as to new clients. More than 90 task forces in the combined firm focus on particular clients and industry sectors, each meeting to develop plans to broaden the services provided clients and industry sectors.

Maximizing profits comes from maximized opportunities for service without over concentration or other loss of balance. The stability and profitability of the merged firm is enhanced by balance. Balance in locations, balance among industries served, balance among clients (none so large that its loss would be dramatic), balance among lawyers (a right mix of practice areas and none so important his or her loss would be dramatic), balance among legal expertise (as full service as can be), and, of course, balance between work ethic and quality of life.

Firms, like people, have personalities, more often today referred to as "cultures." And the culture of a firm shows when merger talks first begin. In the case of the Locke Liddell combination, each firm approached the merger with a commitment that every lawyer at either firm would be given the opportunity to be part of the combined firm. This approach proved right for the combined firm.

In sum, here are a few proven tips for those contemplating a merger and wishing to maximize profits and avoid pitfalls that injure performance in a combined firm are:

Start with the right foundation and ensure a common vision for the combined firm;

Negotiate the terms of the merger with the knowledge that the people on the other side of the table are about to become your partners;

After the merger, treat all your new partners as if you have been partners all your professional lives and all the lawyers and staff as critical members of a team;

Keep everyone, including those who are involved in management, to the maximum extent possible doing what they do best - practicing law;

Integrate practice groups and other aspects of the firm to the maximum extent possible as soon as possible; and

Involve your clients and potential clients in the excitement of the combination; take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the increased size and depth by placing strong emphasis on communicating the merged firm's capabilities to clients and potential clients.

Harriet Miers is a co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp in Dallas. Miers specializes in commercial litigation in state and federal courts.

The criticism isn't that her writing is bad -- it's that there is essentially no writing relevant to the issues that pertain to a Supreme Court nomination. These articles don't help at all in that regard.

She has no identifiable legal philosophy, no identifiable Constitutional theory. As far as we know, she's never written or taught or argued in court on any of these matters. That makes it likely that she can be swayed by what's fashionable among her fellow Justices.

Aside from the writing, which is quite poor, her suggestions in the first article are typical liberal crap-o-la. "Root causes" (including low self-esteem! and poor health care!) of murderous crime; throwing more money at the problem, etc.

Here are the root causes of crime: lack of intact, two-parent families, crime-infested neighborhoods with little or no law enforcement, and weak judges who give pitifully light sentences for heinous crimes. (Dysfunctional education doesn't help either.)

Note that these are all products of liberalism, and note that it's liberals who favor teh continuation of these conditions.

That makes it likely that she can be swayed by what's fashionable among her fellow Justices.

If you were on the SCOTUS would you be swayed like that?

I would only believe she could be swayed if her involvement in nominating all the strict constructionists over the last 5 years was based purely on politics and not her princables.
Is that what you are saying?

The criticism isn't that her writing is bad

I beg to differ, this thread especially.
I suggest you read the intro to the quoted writings, plus post #1. That her writing is bad is precisely the point made. And, it's meant to show an inferior intellect, concurring with Coulter's assessment that Miers is "a mediocrity".

What I deplore about all this is the hypocracy of the Right, in not giving the woman a fair hearing and up-down vote. I think it would be a disatrous sign of weakness to withdraw the nomination. Mistake or not, I believe it would be worse to backtrack.

If you were on the SCOTUS would you be swayed like that?

No, but I have a clear understanding of the Constitution and a coherent set of principles.

What I deplore about all this is the hypocracy of the Right, in not giving the woman a fair hearing and up-down vote.

Where did that come from? Who said she was not going to get an up-or-down vote? What you Republibots are afraid of is that it won't automatically be an "up" vote.

Conservatives have loked at the evidence on this nomination and mny of us see clearly that there is no there there.

I think it would be a disatrous sign of weakness to withdraw the nomination. Mistake or not, I believe it would be worse to backtrack.

Why? It would be worse to withdraw a bad nomination than proceed with it? That doesn't make any sense.

Her writing is cloddish and hamhanded.

You just need to get with the Bush agenda!

1) Spend some money on some kind of international bullcrap that will end up in the pockets of dictators

2) Appease Palestinian terrorists

3) Spend some more money on free drugs for seniors

4) Pretend like you care about border security when you really don't

5) Pay people reparations for the harm mother nature caused in the form of $2000 debit cards so the victims can go on a shopping spree to replace the electronics and high fashion items they stole which recieved water damage

5) Sign unconstitutional bills like Campaign Finance Reform

6) Call Pooty-poot and ask him why, with his good soul, he's still helping the Iranians build nukes

7) Sign some more spending bills Veto? What's that?

8) Wonder why so many Conservatives are mad about that nice lady who sends the sweet greeting cards

"What I deplore about all this is the hypocracy of the Right, in not giving the woman a fair hearing and up-down vote."

The opposition party using filibuster to prevent an up or down vote is obstructionism.

A nominee appointed by one of our own who faces criticism from our own side is most certainly not!

All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.

Gag me with a spoon.

"I just don't know what the quality of her writing ability means in the big picture."

It means she could never write the lead opinion without being laughed at. The articles reflect the bright meanderings of a college freshman, not the deliberations of a top notch jurist. Neither article ever really comes to a point, they are both filled with self defeating references ("misguided and erroneous", why not one or the other?). I could write better as a freshman, maybe I should be supreme court justice.

Thanks for your response - I don't know what organizations you belong to, but I can say that this type of article is consistent with what you will find in 99% of the business, trade or professional journals in America. Leaders often take middle of the road postions while pushing the membership to "get involved."

Miers: "However, discerning correctly synergies from a merger and making certain they are achieved maximizes profits in the most remarkable manner."

She does have a way of torturing syntax.

I don't care if her written opinions look like this:

Abortion Bad.
Privacy Good.
Endangered Species Act too broad. Humans count too.
Under God sounds OK to me.
Public Use means Public Use.
Government must control illegal immigration.
Patriot Act is necessary to protect our society.

She can get a brillian law-clerk to write her opinions like many other justices have done. The key is how she votes.

"I don't have a problem with reasoned criticism. I'm talking about those that want her dumped now before any hearing."

Nothing substantive will come out of the hearings, thanks to the Hinsburg precedent.

Given that, it's not unreasonable to ask her to step down as the logical follow through for opposing her nomination.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.