Stay of Execution

Infinite Distances

"Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, then a wonderful living side by side can grow up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them that makes it possible for each to see the other whole against the sky" -- Rainer Maria Rilke

Boyfriend and I have a pretty groovy thing going.  But there are a few items that we have not yet resolved.  For example, there is the dog person/cat person thing.  The early bird/night owl thing.  Is a Brita water filter necessary or is tap water safe and appropriate to consume?  Is it ever really acceptable to drink blended scotch?  Are life threatening activities like jumping out of airplanes or racing motorcycles the sorts of fun a person might want to seek out and expend lots of time and money on? And how much mental real estate should the Grateful Dead occupy?   

I will leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide where I fall on these important life questions, with one exception.  I earned major brownie points this weekend when I accompanied Boyfriend, his brother, and brother's girlfriend to a Dark Star Orchestra concert, of all things.  Dark Star's tagline is "Recreating the Grateful Dead Experience," and to the untrained ear (mine) they do that quite well.  Actually to the HIGHLY trained ear they also do it well, apparently, because I was in the company of six highly trained ears, and was treated to a lot of education about both bands (the Dead and Dark Star Orchestra), all the songs that were played, as well as a lot of songs that weren't played, plus of course the songs we listened to on the hour drive to and from the concert.  And Boyfriend announced after one song that with his eyes closed he couldn't tell one from the other. 

I like the Grateful Dead just fine.  I own Workingman's Dead and American Beauty and depending on how big my suitcase were one or both albums would make it to the proverbial desert island with me.  I'm even amenable to the idea of expanding my personal library to include an album or two more.  And last night, listening to the (I am assured) near replica of a live Dead show, specifically the March 14, 1982 show they played at UC Davis, I appreciated the density and complexity of their sound, the lilting guitar over the loping bass sounds, tunes that were familiar but forgotten.  I particularly liked the fact that they have two drummers -- that makes the percussive sound wonderfully interesting.  There was a fantastic double drum solo that was really compelling, although it was very long and devolved at the end into some kind of experimental feedback thing that was not so interesting to me.  I had a lot of fun, and although I dozed a bit during the first set, that was entirely due to my body's exhaustion after an 18 mile walk.  I was wide awake during the second set, and if my legs hadn't been aching I would have been dancing. 

But I don't understand the whole culture that surrounds the Dead, that makes it possible for so many people to talk for so long about which songs they stopped playing in 1977 and where the band was the last time they played song X and who was in the band at that time.  There's just some part of me that loses interest -- I can't help it.  I mean, today I know a lot more about the Grateful Dead than I did yesterday, and I suppose I'm glad to know it.  It makes the band and the music more interesting to me.  And I already appreciated the music.  But I don't have a burning curiosity to know more, or to hear more, or to listen to the same song as it was played in 1971 and then 1976 and then 1978 and then 1981 and then 1986 and then 1988 so I can hear the evolution of the sound.  I mean, I can see how that kind of thing is interesting from a sort of musicology perspective but it's not something I would choose to invest a lot of time in knowing.  Is it because the Dead are really so much better and musically interesting than other bands that this kind of fanatic devotion among fans has sprung up?  Is it because the fan base is itself somehow different -- that the culture of the fans makes this kind of accumulation and swapping of an enormous music library, plus associated knowledge about the band and the songs, a second part of the fun?  Or is this kind of study and accumulation of trivia about playlists something that is widespread, but that I just don't happen to know, say, the people who learn this kind of stuff about, say Britney Spears? 

Deadheads are as mysterious as Trekkies to me.  I enjoyed Star Trek from time to time as much as the next person, unless of course the next person was one of those people who didn't just watch it now and then but became fluent in Klingon and dressed up in funny suits and went to conventions.  I went through a mild jam band phase when I was in high school and college -- a few Phish shows, a Dead show, the Jerry Garcia band, etc.  So there was something familiar and poignant and nostalgic while I was people watching.  But mostly I found myself thinking "These people look like unmade beds," and wondering why some folks would drive for hours and hours, years and years of their lives, in fact, to be able to dance and exchange knowing looks with a stranger in a plaid shirt when a few guitar chords signal the beginning of a particularly meaningful song. 

Boyfriend does not look like an unmade bed, by the way.  And he has a fantastic and diverse musical library - comparing musical libraries was how we got together, in fact.  But we part ways on the depth of our interest here.   

 

Report from the Middle of the Atlantic

Dad writes:

hi all. anthem 1300 utc 11/29 at 18-29n, 33-23w. wind ese 18 kts, speed 10 k. For past 24 hrs flying west under hounds kite. last night, gorgeous moon early then starry sky over flat seas and 15-20 k easterly. at 0420 we pass within 100 yds of a large white sloop running wing and wing. had to harden up to cross her stern on port. she had a light on us for 5-10 min as we rush by. I'm sure anthem was an impressive sight racing along in the dark. our only real problem is chafe on the hounds spinnaker halyard - had to cut off 2 feet this morning we figure we might have enough rope to get there at that rate w/ a couple of spare lines. I am now going to attempt to bake some bread. well and happy, love w.

For you non sailors: 1300 UTC means 1 PM universal coordinated time (a time zone, like Greenwich mean time). 18-29 N, 33-23 W are coordinates of latitude and longitude showing the yacht's location. Wind ESE means East South East. 18 knots is a speed -- it's about twenty miles per hour. Wind at 18 knots feels windy, but your hat will stay on your head. You'd have to chase a dropped napkin, however, pretty quickly. Speed 10knots -- that's fast on a boat -- not the fastest, not vibrating hull and spray everywhere and holding on for dear life, but a nice clip, with a nice bow wave coming off of the hull and a bit of a rooster tail wave showing behind the stern. Flying west -- that means they're zooming along toward the west. "Under hounds kite" means they are flying a sail called a spinnaker (we call it a kite sometimes), the big ballooney sail that you see on calendars and things. (View pics of a couple of spinnakers here)
The "hounds" is a kind of spinnaker that is broad near the top. A "sloop" is a kind of boat with just one mast, and it was "running wing and wing " -- meaning it was going downwind with a sail on either side of the boat. It's a tricky and kind of lovely way to sail. Had to "harden up" -- change direction and sail closer to the wind, which is kind of a production in the windspeed and direction they were sailing, so they were probably going very fast, and lines were creaking and water was rushing past the hull, and adjusting the sails made lots of noise in the middle of the night. Probably scary and beautiful for the sloop surprised by this overtaking racing yacht. "Chafe on the hounds spinnaker halyard" -- the rope holding the big spinnaker sail up the mast of the sailboat (the halyard) is not accustomed to having the spinnaker up for days and days at a time, which appears to be the case given prevailing wind directions. And there is lots of pressure on the sail, and the halyard holding it up is rubbing little by little against the pulley it comes out of at the top of the mast. So it is chafing and fraying. The fact that they cut off two feet probably means they sent someone up the mast -- so a guy was sitting on a little bosun's chair way up above the boat, while the sails were up and the boat is zooming along in the middle of the ocean, and cut off a couple of feet of halyard and then re-rigged the clip that attaches the sail to the rope. Exciting stuff. They are having fun.

Half Power

Apparently it is possible to lose power in half of your house and have the problem be with the wires connecting into the house. Unfortunately the half that keeps going out and coming back on again is connected to the furnace. For now (!) it's on. Raw grey day outside with very high winds and occasional spitting snow.

Walked 18 miles and want nothing more than couch time and sleep, but instead am jumping in the car and heading down to Boston with Boyfriend to meet Boyfriend's brother and his girlfriend, and to go see some music. Not sure how much dancing I can do on these legs but perhaps a nap in the car will help. Haven't met the brother and I guess it's time.....

House Full of New Yorkers

I'd love to write but I have a house full of New York visitors -- a couple of fetching red headed brothers and a Best Friend and her Fiance, my old college pal. We're feasting on leftover cranberry tart (with a creamy white chocolate and lime curd base) and homemade bread and sundried tomato goat cheese dip and turkey turkey turkey. Have to catch up with you later....

Full Belly

The kitchen is put away, but the sideboard in the front room is still loaded with pies and half-full bottles of wine. Housemate and Neighbor are in the front room playing old time music with a fiddle and a banjo or dulcimer or something. The dog and a guest are wrestling on the floor of this room. In the room that serves as a den of sorts three or four guests are lounging on the sofa and talking about skiing and music and travel and all sorts of things. The other guests have gone home after a walk through the neighborhood and across the street to the waterside, where we looked out across the ocean at the blinking lights on Peaks Island and the ferry boats and the lighthouses until it got too cold to stay. There's a kettle warming on the stove -- I've decided to trade the gin I'm drinking for a cup of tea else I'll never stay awake past eight.

We had fifteen people here for Thanksgiving dinner. Three of them were total strangers to me -- friends of guests, orphaned for Thanksgiving. Another four I know only a little better, people I've met only a time or two. I had a little trepidation about the group dynamics but it turned out to be an easy bunch, with lots of laughter and good conversation. And good cooks, all. The dog knocked over a plant but that was the only snafu -- no dropped plates or spilled wine or social faux pas. Lots of wine, lots and lots and lots of pie.

Note from Dad just received: hi all, happy thanksgiving. 6:00 utc finds us at 20-15n 26-22w running in 22 knots with main and poled out jib making 9 - 11 kts. partly cloudy, occasional showers. Difficult sailing for the past 24 hours with big seas right astern. I am well, but missing the thought of a big turkey dinner.

I am thankful that my Dad is safely enjoying a great adventure, that my family and friends are healthy, and for the kinship I feel in my daily life, even across the ether. Thanks for reading my blog. I wish you good friends, good food, and the time to appreciate the things you love.

My Kingdom For Some Experience

Just did my first real closing, with MY client who I've been working with toward this end for, good lord, over a year now. It wasn't hard but yet, geez, it was hard. I was in knots about it all day, reviewing the closing agenda and checking the documents I had and worrying about the documents I didn't have and stewing about the fact that the inquiring phone calls I made to answer my questions weren't returned.

It's not the stuff I don't know that's the hardest, it's the stuff I don't know that I don't know. The stuff that I don't think about, because I don't know enough to realize I need to think about it. Like, I should have each document in a separate manila folder, numbered separately, all in a big redwell. I had the documents ordered, but not in separate folders, so at the closing when Lender's counsel would turn to me I would fumble around and rummage through documents. Aha. She has this whole system, it turns out, that makes sorting through all this stuff very businesslike and easy. Nice.

And I was off kilter. I didn't know what to expect so, for instance, when Lender's counsel asked me about a document I didn't have, I felt panicky and scared. It turned out the Bank person had it, it wasn't mine to have lost or misplaced, but because the whole thing was unfamiliar I rummaged through everything I had feeling stupid for a long moment before Bank woke up and said, no, wait, it's right here. And I had forgotten a document, so I had to excuse myself and call my assistand and have her fax it to me. I just felt like a big dumb oaf.

It was like being at a dinner party in a foreign country, where you don't know the customs or which fork to use or which thing on your plate is just garnish and which is edible. The substantive part of the deal I really knew, and when Seller showed up later and Seller's counsel requested that something new be put into writing someone handed me a legal pad and I drafted up an agreement that I felt really proud of, on the spot, and that avoided some pitfalls that Seller's counsel's wording might have gotten us into. It was just the procedure that I didn't know, and it made me feel clumsy and stupid and small.

When I got back to the office, after I'd given the client and his wife a couple of bottles of wine I got them to celebrate the deal, and they gave me a big hug, I was sitting at my desk all fried. The Big Guy came in to ask me about it and I told him how much I want to just have some experience under my wheels. I mean, I know this deal came out well for the client and the closing went just fine but it could have been smoother -- I should have anticipated some things I didn't anticipate, I should have brought a "cheat sheet" of numbers and things, I should have made myself a better roadmap of who would be doing what so I wasn't fumbling and oafish. Now I know and I won't be next time.

It will sound like hubris and I'll regret saying it but I don't feel at all intellectually intimidated by this job. Disclaimers abound -- there are lots of smart people -- but I don't doubt that I'm smart enough to play with the big boys. Probably a misconception but there you go, that's not where my insecurity lies. I've always been able to keep up intellectually. The hard part is just my ignorance. I'm ignorant of the substance of the law, and how it is used tactically. That, too, I accept and am not particularly bothered by. I have lots of opportunities to learn that, and I take them when I can and I think I retain the lessons pretty well. I'm ignorant, though, of the customs and practices of this trade, of the habits and the little tricks and the methods for managing all the little details. And I'm ashamed of that part, and not at all confident about it. I don't mind having egg on my face if I'm making a credible but losing argument, but I mind feeling like a doofus because my papers are all shoved into a folder and I can't find the one I'm looking for. I should have known better, should have thought it through, but I was too busy thinking about what the words on the documents meant than about how to carry them to the closing. I know myself, I'll always focus on that stuff, so the only way to get to be smooth and practiced is to fumble along learning this stuff the hard way.

Nobody Here But Us Chickens?

David Giacalone, of the late great Ethical Esq? blog (go ahead, click on the link, it'll make his hit count go up), emailed a few bloggers last night asking whether there really is anyone out there in the blogosphere. He's watched his hit counter on a blog he's stopped updating continue to register really big numbers. He asks whether this is likely -- would real readers keep coming back to a site they know isn't being updated?

I guess he's positing that most of those "hits" are phantoms -- maybe crawlers or spammers but not real folks really reading the page. Or, I guess, that once someone has read it and knows it's not being refreshed they have no reason to go back, or to keep a link active for new visitors.

On this site I learn about flesh and blood humans reading the site in three ways: because they comment, or they email me privately, or they blog something that refers to the page so I know they read it. I keep learning about new folks through one of these three ways and these make me very pleased whenever one of the three happens. Although I monitor my visitor stats I don't trust them very much, so I really only know you've been here if you tell me so.

The reason I don't trust my visitor stats is that some folks who have emailed tell me they read me through a blog aggregator that pushes my content to them. I have something similar installed, and the way mine works I read the content of people's pages without actually loading their site into my browser, and I don't know whether those readers are counted on the stats page. I also don't trust my stat page because a huge number of my visits are crazy and probably crazily frustrated Google searchers for whom my site is the top five search result for terms that clearly aren't meant to bring them to my page. (e.g. I am the number one result for "execution facts" and "Skadden head hunters" and come up high for "Mike O'Sullivan" and "professional appearance" and "Jeremy Blachman enron"). In other words, people who want to read what it is I have to say might not actually "hit" my site, whatever that means, and lots of people who don't want to read what I have to say DO hit my site.

And anyway, whatever the "real" numbers are, who really cares? I mean, I guess David's right to question all the stats of who's getting read and how on earth people know whether those numbers are any good and is Glenn Reynolds really being read by all those people, but for my part do I care whether there are 10 or 100 or 1000 people reading what I write? I suppose I do, but the truth is I'm thrilled that there are a handful of confirmable people, who have spoken back to me in interesting ways, who I didn't know before I began this thing. What a gift!

What Do I Look Like?

Hmmm, Jeffrey Cross posted a friendly comment requesting that I post a pic of myself to the blog so visitors can know what I look like.

I was both pleased by the request and resistant to it. Can't figure out why. I think maybe I feel like my voice on this blog reflects me in a lot of moods and a lot of frames of mind and I can't figure out which of those moods I would want to post a snapshot of. Not to mention if I could decide on the prevailing personality or voice do I have a picture that fits? I have a digital picture of me flying an airplane that I like -- I'm smiling and kind of playful and obviously delighted by the new experience I'm having. My firm website shows me in a suit but sitting in my easy chair holding a cup of tea, and I feel like it suits me. But the hairstyle is old, so that wouldn't do for this one.

I don't know, I sort of like not knowing what my favorite bloggers look like. That way I can imagine that I'm passing them on the street. It gives perfect strangers I see each day a wonderful possible inner life -- the bloggers I like could be anyone. What do you think? Pic or no pic? If pic, which me?

Firm-Specific Human Capital

The Professor is blogging about wages and investment and it makes me think, as usual, about how all this theory applies to ME. And, as usual, I'm drifting around the topic that his posting made me think about, not responding to his points or his theories. (Cogitatio does that here.) And, as usual, I'm not able to focus and write cogently so you're just going to get some random musings here.

The Professor talks about firm-specific human capital, which I take to mean specialized knowledge like, "here at Acme, we produce these TPS reports after every sale so that the guys in marketing can do blah blah blah, and the best way to do a good TPS report is to make sure it has a cover sheet because...." which presumably is not very important anywhere else. I don't know whether lawyers have a lot of that firm-specific knowledge. Maybe there's some investment in knowledge of firm culture: Westlaw vs. Lexis, Word Perfect vs. Microsoft Word., a wardrobe appropriate for the firm's dress code. At the same time I think his point about employees taking risks to go with one place over another is worthwhile. Especially those of us who choose to go to a small shop over a big-name resume-builder. That's a gamble, and I got (and still get) a lot of naysayers telling me it was unwise. It's a gamble for us, and, I suppose, a gamble for them.

I wonder often why firms hire first year associates -- they don't know much compared to what they cost, and it doesn't seem to make much sense, if there's a supply of reasonably smart, reasonably trained second or third year associates out there. (And now that I'm a second or third year (I never know how you count these things, but I've got just two years under my belt and am working on number 3) I wonder why would you hire someone like me if you could get a fifth or sixth year? But I'm beginning to see the answer to those questions....) I've often wondered why the prestigious BIGLAWs out there knock themselves out and spend mind boggling amounts of money to recruit and then pay summer associates and first year associates. Why not sit back and poach guys like the IA a couple of years out, when they've learned some of the necessary practical skills?

You hear this rumor that law firms don't really start making money off associates until they've been with the firm for a couple of years. I don't see how that can be. What I mean is, if it's that way, why on earth wouldn't folks change it to a smarter system? Because you also hear that nobody at those big firms plans on staying anyway. I can't decide who's using whom in those prototypical big firm relationships where nobody expects loyalty in either direction.

I wonder a lot about law firms as a business because the human capital that gets developed is really individual-specific. I mean, basically we associates are getting paid to get more valuable and knowledgeable. There's not a lot of firm-specific knowledge in the TPS report sense, unless you associate knowledge about a particular client as "firm" knowledge -- not sure that makes sense to do. People get reputations with clients and among other lawyers, and it's the person you want to deal with again, not the firm, particularly. It's true for referrals, too -- I call Attorney Y because I think he's good and he's easy to deal with and fun to talk to and ask if he can help me with something, and he can't so he refers me to a partner, well, it's not because the partner is associated with his firm that I want to deal with her, it's because she's got Y's vote and I trust Y not to throw me under a bus and recommend a jerk. So how do firms instill any sense of loyalty for their investment?

For me it's pretty much about personal relationships -- if the Big Guy left, I'd go with him if he'd take me. Not that I don't like the other folks here but working with him is just fantastic -- I learn with him faster than I learn from anyone else, and I like who I am and how I work when I'm working with him. But there are other things I'm attached to here -- the staff is fantastic, there are lots of parties and reasons to celebrate and the feeling for the most part, is genuine and friendly. I like my office, the way I've got it decorated and the view. I like the people here, the "feel" of the firm and the way people work together. The switching costs would be pretty high. And I'm getting attached to certain clients and their problems and their stories....

UPDATE: I was thinking a little more about this concept this morning (11/26) and I think it explains why I'm not interested in litigation, particularly. It strikes me as a highly specialized skillset that prepares me only to be a lawyer -- not "firm-specific" but industry specific for sure. Only lawyers care about knowing the rules of civil procedure. The more I know about that stuff the more my conversations about work become exclusively of interest to lawyers. Whereas knowing about bankruptcy and business deals -- wow. Sure there's some specialized knowledge about navigating the code but at core I'm learning about how people and businesses fail, and how people and businesses recover from bad decisions, and different strategies for picking up the pieces following a big loss, and the different ways people paint themselves into corners. Fascinating. And not, it seems to me, knowledge that is specific to being a lawyer. I may turn out to be hooked on being a lawyer, but I won't be doomed to do only this....

Yahoooooo I'm Wireless!

I'm sitting on my sofa, and my laptop, freshly back from extended refitting and recovery, is on my lap, and none of us are plugged in, and the modem is way upstairs and hee hee hee I am blogging and I just got email and I can walk into the kitchen or down to the basement or up to my bedroom and what do you know, I'm still connected. Hooray! This is going to change my life. My computer setup at home has been so kluge-y as to be nonexistent for months and months. This is going to be great.