Back(Up)date: Boalt Alum in the News
Boalt alum (and until last fall, lecturer) and Silicon Valley power broker Larry Sonsini was the subject of this meandering but interesting profile in the New York Times. Larry is always good for a soundbite, in his exceedingly understated way. My favorite quotation: “It’s not my job to be in the newspapers.”
I found the piece a bit frustrating, from the standpoint of a news consumer, as it engaged in this strange kind of journalistic shadowboxing, with offhand, unsourced references on the one hand to "rumors" about Sonsini's legal abilities and how much trouble he might be in, all dutifully refuted by actual, live people who know Larry Sonsini (like the founding partner at Gunderson, or the Senior MoFo partner, etc.).
A strange tone for the piece was set straight off, as in one of the introductory paragraphs, even the reporter concedes: "Mr. Sonsini has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the scandal, nor is it even clear that he will be swept up in the investigation of questionable options policies that his clients adopted" before launching into a 2,800 word exploration of Sonsini's influence in Silicon Valley (undisputed), his abilities as a lawyer (apparently, disputed, but no one with a name was willing to be among the "some" who "say that Mr. Sonsini is a better businessman than attorney"), his business acumen and client skills (pretty good, it seems) and the conflicts of interest that exist between corporations and their legal advisers, generally.
I think Larry Sonsini is a pretty fascinating attorney and character, worthy of a NY Times profile. This one had some nice color, but it did a pretty poor job of really establishing a credible news angle and giving a reader context as to 1) what Larry Sonsini's precise wrongdoing was, if any, in the burgeoning Silicon Valley scandals; and 2) the role of corporate advisers in these scandals generally.
Anyway, those are my off-the-cuff thoughts. Yours are welcome in comments.
Full disclosure: I took a class with Larry Sonsini. I enjoyed the class, to the extent that one enjoys a law school class. He seems like a nice man and a very, very bright guy (he really can cite Delaware case law from memory).
I found the piece a bit frustrating, from the standpoint of a news consumer, as it engaged in this strange kind of journalistic shadowboxing, with offhand, unsourced references on the one hand to "rumors" about Sonsini's legal abilities and how much trouble he might be in, all dutifully refuted by actual, live people who know Larry Sonsini (like the founding partner at Gunderson, or the Senior MoFo partner, etc.).
A strange tone for the piece was set straight off, as in one of the introductory paragraphs, even the reporter concedes: "Mr. Sonsini has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the scandal, nor is it even clear that he will be swept up in the investigation of questionable options policies that his clients adopted" before launching into a 2,800 word exploration of Sonsini's influence in Silicon Valley (undisputed), his abilities as a lawyer (apparently, disputed, but no one with a name was willing to be among the "some" who "say that Mr. Sonsini is a better businessman than attorney"), his business acumen and client skills (pretty good, it seems) and the conflicts of interest that exist between corporations and their legal advisers, generally.
I think Larry Sonsini is a pretty fascinating attorney and character, worthy of a NY Times profile. This one had some nice color, but it did a pretty poor job of really establishing a credible news angle and giving a reader context as to 1) what Larry Sonsini's precise wrongdoing was, if any, in the burgeoning Silicon Valley scandals; and 2) the role of corporate advisers in these scandals generally.
Anyway, those are my off-the-cuff thoughts. Yours are welcome in comments.
Full disclosure: I took a class with Larry Sonsini. I enjoyed the class, to the extent that one enjoys a law school class. He seems like a nice man and a very, very bright guy (he really can cite Delaware case law from memory).
posted by Anonymous at 9:27 AM
8 Comments:
I took Sonsini's class, too. I thought he was smart and charming. I suspect that the negative rumors are largely the product of jealous rivals - Larry really is larger than life, and the single most influential business attorney in Calif.
On the other hand, I read an interview in the Boalt Hall Transcript a year or two ago in which Larry himself is quoted as saying that his business judgment is his true strength, more so than his legal skills (although those aren't too shabby).
I thought the Times piece was a terrible attempt to cloak an innuendo-laden hatchet-job in a truly threadbare mantle of even-handedness and disclaimer. I don't know Sonsini from Adam, but I do know that I woudn't want to be "profiled" in that way. I encourage people to look at the article (and really at almost any piece of feature reporting in the Times over the past year or so) and see how many ways they've found to quote and credit anonymous and oftentimes meanspirited sources.
Yawn. Actually the profile used kid gloves on Sonsini. It was the furthest thing from a hatchet job. The guy's clients are mired in the biggest business scandal of the year. The prosecutors did not rule out charging Sonsini. Serious stuff, Mr. Zaur.
I'm halfway on the profile. It conveys a sense of awe, but with a lot of backhanded details (doesn't ask after kids?). The problem is that it's two articles in one - a profile (which should include some details like the family one above) and a rumor/news piece on the criminal backdating investigation (which should stick to facts and named sources).
As the criminal news goes, the mess could be astonishing even if nothing went wrong. Leave it to a zealous AUSA and a grand jury to ruin three to five years of someone's life.
Unrelated question: what does the Boalt crim pro syllabus cover? Does it go into the Fed. R. Crim. P. and all the grand jury, subpoena, and discovery rules? If not, is there another class that does?
The prosecutors have not ruled out charging Anonymous 11:52. With something. But he or she MAY be implicated, because the prosecutors have ruled neither in, nor out, charging him or her with a crime. Point being, there is a lot of distance between prosecutors charging someone with a crime and an innocent person getting swept up in an investigation. The Times, and Anonymous 11:52, apparently fail to see such a distinction.
I say it's about time that rich, powerful white guys get screwed by a zealous AUSA and grand jury.
TF--not really (or at least Murphy's doesn't). It is mostly 4th and 5th amendment, with some 6th. There may be a few readings on the actual mechanics of the process.
I'd guess one of the practice classes, like Criminal Trial Practice, would be what you're looking for...
yeah, we should really lock up all those rich powerful white guys. bastards.
Post a Comment
<< Home