Posted on 10/17/2005 12:20:04 AM PDT by tallhappy
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.
Copyright 1992 American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc. Texas Lawyer
July 27, 1992
SECTION: COMMENTARY; State Bar of Texas; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 1080 words
HEADLINE: DON'T BLAME THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR FORT WORTH RAMPAGE
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.
TIGHTER SECURITY NEEDED
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.
ATTACKING THE CAUSES
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.
Copyright 2000 American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc. Texas Lawyer
June 26, 2000
SECTION: Pg. 67
LENGTH: 1215 words
HEADLINE: WHEN TWO BECOME ONE; STEPS TO A SUCCESSFUL FIRM MERGER
BYLINE: HARRIET MIERS
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.
Assess Risks
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."
Preparing the Troops
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.
Stick With It
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.
Maximize Synergies
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.
Balancing Act
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.
The Tips
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.
Copyright 2000, Texas Lawyer. All rights reserved.
She's learning. Already in 1992 she was talking like a freeper even though the message was mixed.
No thanks. It was hard enough to read. The message in it is a yawner. "It's unreasonable to assert that the legal system shot the innocent victims."
It seems that she may be pro second amendment- and that is actually more indication than is evident about Chief Justice Roberts- and that is REALLY scary!
You mean like Dr. (?) Joycelyn Elders and her " We need safer guns and safer bullets" and her mandatory masturbation training?
This is the sort of writing up with which we will not put.
Said you it!
Why? You more interested in fancy writing than judicial restraint and strict constructionism?
Not me - - I couldn't care less about fancy writing. But hey, everybody has different priorities, I guess.
"It means she could never write the lead opinion without being laughed at."
[You mean like Dr. (?) Joycelyn Elders and her " We need safer guns and safer bullets" and her mandatory masturbation training?]
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, someone from the Clinton administration is obviously the analogy I was making. Not.
That's what happens when you're a 3-fingered typist and those three fingers have minds of their own ;^)
I do not write my Christmas letters with the same "voice" or form which I use for posting here at FR. I also write prayer differently than I write protest. I write poetry completely differently that I write letters to the editor. Legal opinions are written much differently than magazine articles. As Harriet Miers has never served on the bench, and has never written a legal opinion or court order, comparing her extant words to what SCOTUS jurists have written is comparing apples to tiramisu.
I understand that some here have an argument with the fact that Miers has never been a judge. They don't like that she has no written legal opinions to examine. Okay, but comparing writings that are not legal opinions against the standard of written legal opinions is a false dichotomy.
So I'm a lousy typist, especially when I'm in a hurry.
The criticism is not of the content but the clearity and intelligence in the way she has expressed the ideas here. Reading someone's writing style is the clearest measure of their intellect and wisdom.
I'm reading it differently. Punishment for crime, swift, sure, appropriate. Rule of law over rule of man. So, she doesn't mention the death penalty specifically; it wasn't pertinent to the subject. She supports individual gun rights (which is more than Bork does).
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.
This reads more like prevention than rehabilitation; not through government but through the individual choosing to help in some way.
None of the justices could write a brilliant enough piece to explain why inmates are allowed abortions aided by taxpayers' money. The vast majority of us on this board could type out the Constitutional rationale of why the lower court was wrong, even if we didn't write immortal phrases for the world to applaud.
My experience on the City Council helps me understand the interplay between serving on a policy making board and serving as a judge. An example, of this distinction can be seen in a vote of the council to ban flag burning. The Council was free to state its policy position, we were against flag burning. The Supreme Court's role was to determine whether our Constitution allows such a ban. The City Council was anxious to encourage minority and women-owned businesses, but our processes had to conform to equal protection requirements, as well.
Can you say...IRONY?
What are you implying?
Your statement is poorly written. Therefore, by your own standard, your intellect and wisdom must be suspect.
How is it poorly written? And are you so small as to ignore the difference between posts on a right wing chat board and text submitted for publication? Would you like to review my published works?
As a professional writer you must know, then, that in your poorly worded sentence,
[r]eading someone's writing style is the clearest measure of their intellect and wisdom
"reading" is the subject, grammatically. But you don't mean that "reading" is the measure of intellect, which would literally make no sense. Your act of reading cannot possibly be the measure of someone else's intellect.
You obviously mean "writing style" is the measure. Thus a correct formulation would be: "One's writing style is the clearest measure of his intellect and wisdom." Equally correct would be: "Reading someone's writing style is the clearest way to measure his or her intellect and wisdom." (It is very poor form to say "their intellect" when referring to a single individual.)
Thus you have made a series of amateurish errors in a statement sneering at someone else's writing style.
Quintessential irony.
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.
