In response to my blogging about Phone to Phone Inc. (1, 2, 3, 4), which operates newlawyer.com, laws.com, attorney.org, science.org and other websites, I recently received the following self-explanatory email from a Phone to Phone Inc. employee raising some issues about Phone to Phone Inc.'s employment and SEO practices. For obvious reasons, I've redacted information that would be likely to identify the author. I have not been able to verify the accuracy of this email, but it is consistent with a telephone conversation I had with someone else who was recruited for a Phone to Phone Inc. position.
__________

[begin third party email]

"They hired me as an article writer for their "websites". Which if you haven't seen... compare the following two of their big ones

www.attorney.org
www.science.org

And click a few links. They had me write 15 500 word articles based on keywords. I spent the day writing 500 word articles with the keyword [redacted]. Where there must be 30 total instances of the keywords in each article and they do zero fact checking.

In order to hopefully gain full employment I would have to show up at their office each day, write 15 of these a day. On the third day, they could let me go, and keep all 45 of the articles I wrote. They bring in about 20 new people a day, having them do something similar. Though most people are hired to make calls, and they have them make at least 150 calls each day for three days before informing them if they've been accepted for employment.

They bring in about 20 "prospectives" a day, and hire very very few. This gets them a lot of "free" work.

You will notice that the articles on their websites are not, in fact, articles based on the content, but based on keywords. Try a few of the links and you'll notice on science.org in one 500 word article the word science appears approx 25 times.

All attempts to get their site to be the number one hit on key terms without having any actual content to speak of."

[end third party email]
__________

This email prompted me to poke around both science.org and attorney.org. I was completely unimpressed by the quality of content I saw. I thought this junk article (I nofollowed the link--no link juice from me!) on "Patent Laws for Inventors" was a fine exemplar of the (low) article quality on science.org. Check it out and evaluate it for yourself. I don't mean to be snarky, but I would expect most seventh graders to do a better writing job than the writing in this article. A few representative quotes:

* "Inventors may come up with ideas that are in regard to machines or processes."
* Referring to design patents, "A design is the face of the product or the company and should be protected. Designs distinguish and separate one company from the next and it is because of this that this type of patent is required for businesses and manufacturers alike." [this was not about trade dress or trademarks; it was about design patents]
* "A patent should not be confuse [sic] with a copyright. A copyright will provide inventors with the rights to prevent any other inventors from producing material in the same way or with the same expression."
* "Keep in mind that not everything can be patented and some things are already, so make sure you have a solid and original idea before you even apply for one."
* "It should be also noted that the process may be lengthy and is not conducted over night."

A sterling contribution to the literature. Anyone who knows IP law can immediately spot ambiguities or outright flaws in the above quotes. Frankly, if it weren't so spammy (out of 516 words, I count 18 references to "patent" and 15 to "inventor"), I'd actually wonder if this was intended to be a spoof or satire about how seriously people take patents. Even if that wasn't the intent, the article has far more value as a satire than it does as an educative piece.

Lisa has a spinning mix for Halloween, consisting of:

Bela Lugosi's Dead - Bauhaus (terrific song)
Monster Mash - Boris Pickett (corny but essential)
Werewolves of London - Warren Zevon
The Devil Went Down to Georgia - Charlie Daniels
Thriller - Michael Jackson
Dead Man's Party - Oingo Boingo (another great song; I'm surprised at how rarely this song makes Halloween mix lists given how topical it is)
The Exorcist (Theme from Tubular Bells)
Somebody's Watching Me - Rockwell
I Want Candy - Bow Wow Wow (this is Lisa being silly)
Overture from Phantom of the Opera
Black Magic Woman - Santana
Requiem: Dies Irae - Mozart (another great Halloween song that doesn't make the mix lists often enough)
Great Balls of Fire - Jerry Lee Lewis
Superstition - Stevie Wonder
I Put A Spell On You - Creedence Clearwater Revival

In some of her spinning classes, she gives out halloween candy as prizes to people who can guess some of the obscure artists represented in this list. Hope you have a happy and safe halloween!

I apologize for the flurry of blog posts on the spam I'm receiving from Phone to Phone Inc. websites, but I've found that lots of folks are experiencing the same problem. I've already criticized Phone to Phone Inc. for their spam promotion of Newlawyer.com (including my SiteJabber post on Newlawyer.com) and Laws.com, but their relentless spamming continues. I remain very impressed that they have so many different marketing executives at Phone to Phone Inc. (unless, of course, they are lying about the sender's identity, which I know they wouldn't do...would they?). Yet, for all of that in-house marketing expertise, apparently none of these executives have successfully convinced Phone to Phone Inc. that their spamming campaign is counterproductive to their long term objectives. Given that, I don't expect my shaming blog post will convince them either, but a lawsuit, Google de-indexing or a properly organized Googlebomb might be a different story. And I think the company might reconsider the quality of guidance it's getting from its marketing executives.

Here's the text of the spam promoting Attorney.org. Uh, no thanks.
_______

from Michael Foti
to egoldman@gmail.com
date Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:31 AM
subject About Your Blog

Dear Eric,

My name is Michael Foti and I am the Executive Director of Marketing for Attorney.org. I am writing you this email to better inform you about our website and in hopes of reaching a mutually beneficial strategic partnership. Attorney.org is one of the top sources of free legal information on the Internet. We provide articles of general and specific information to our visitors regarding common legal issues as well as breaking legal news. In addition to providing information, Attorney.org will be profiling noteworthy attorneys from around the country, attorney generals, district attorneys, and high-ranking local, state, and federal government officials. It is not only a great networking tool for attorneys, but it is also an efficient way to reach out to prospective clients. I believe that your blog can benefit greatly from a new audience of 10,000 unique visitors a month.

We want to list your blog as a source of information on our resources page, and potentially highlight you as a top blog on the Internet in an article on Attorney.org. Our website currently ranks in the top 50 for the anchors "attorney" and "attorneys", and will only continue to move up. I am hoping that in return, you will be able to include a link to Attorney.org somewhere on your blog (preferably as an addition to your blog roll). This would increase the free flow of information and provide an additional source of information for the readers of both our websites.

There is no doubt in my mind that your blog will be a valuable resource to our Attorney.org users. I believe that we can both benefit from this prospective strategic partnership as the increased traffic will drive new users to both our websites. Should you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have included the link information as well as my contact information below.

Title: Attorney, Attorneys (Attorney.org)
Description: Attorney.org

Michael Foti
Executive Director of Marketing, Legal Network
1 International Blvd. Suite 211 Mahwah, NJ 07495
Office: 201-252-8255
Cell:551-795-2806

I've been kvetching about the heavy barrage of spam and telemarketing from Newlawyer.com. I haven't previously mentioned that they are an operation of Phone to Phone Inc., which apparently has branched out into spamming for other sites it operates. This week a number of folks complained about being spammed with an email congratulating them as a top 100 law blog. See, e.g., Bob Ambrogi's post. I never received the top 100 honor spam but I was privileged enough to get a different spam from Laws.com:
___

from Partick Coleman
to egoldman@gmail.com
date Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
subject Love this site -http://www.ericgoldman.org

Dear Webmaster,

Our website Laws.com is considered one of the largest legal informational database in the world, containing crucial information on jurisdictions and breaking legal news. We have offered this site to the public to increase the FREE flow of information. There is little to be said for the many judicial systems around the country and we strive to offer the information much of the public seeks. The only way to increase the information we offer is to seek out some of the top informational resources online. Your blog seems to be an excellent informational resource and would bring a great resource to our viewing public. We would be pleased to offer your inclusion in Laws.com as a featured blogger, as well as giving you the Laws.com Featured Blogger Badge. This is a prestigious award given to some of the brightest bloggers around the country to recognize their dedication and hard work. You will see the code for the featured blogger badge within this email, please get back to us with your blogs banner so we may make your blog available to our public ASAP. Thanks!, keep up the great work.

[code omitted to ensure that they get no link love here]

Nick Fox
Senior Marketing Executive
Phone to Phone Inc.
1 International Blvd. Suite 203
Mahwah, New Jersey
+1(551) 655 6828
Laws.com
_________

If this is the first time I had heard from this outfit, I simply would have marked it as spam as another link request and then moved on. But because of the Phone to Phone Inc. connection, this just becomes more evidence of Phone to Phone Inc.'s shadiness. Another piece of evidence of their shadiness: the email purported to be from "Partick Coleman" but the sig block says "Nick Fox." Spamming lawyers and bloggers is bad enough, but sloppy spam is inexcusable!

I am now skeptical of all Phone to Phone Inc. operated websites, which (according to Bob) include Laws.com, NewLawyer.com, Attorney.org, LawSchool.org and Docket.com. Great way to build your brand, guys.

Newlawyer.com continues to earn my antipathy. You may recall that a few weeks ago, I got spammed by Dominic Sebahia on behalf of Newlawyer.com. At that time, I sent my blog post to Dominic and got the following reply:

"Sorry about it, Sir. But, there was no harm intention to hurt you. I am promising you that no one from our firm will be contacting you in future. Our emails are not spam. We just need co-operation from people like you. We are here to help people. Anyways sir, I am sorry again." (emphasis added)

A broken promise! This morning I got a virtually identical spam from Steven Kim under the subject line "We love your blog" (aww, how sweet, but I'm beginning to wish they loved me a little less):
_________

from Steven Kim
to egoldman@gmail.com
date Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:18 AM
subject We love your blog

Hi,

My name is Steven and I am the Director of Marketing for NewLawyer.com.I found your blog/website interesting. Our blogs are posted in most of the websites. I want to feature you onto our website and that for absolutely free. Our website is the first telelegal portal that connects attorneys to those in need of legal advice through phone to phone consultations via the technology on our website. I would love to feature your blog on NewLawyer as I believe that many of our Lawyers would enjoy your blog. I was hoping to have NewLawyer added to your blog roll if that would be at all possible. I've included some additional information below and if you have any questions feel free to find my contact info below and call me. I look forward to hearing from you.

We would like to list your blog on our site as an additional resource to our users. We believe that your blog would be a great addition. The blog's website would be linked to our page so that our users would be able to click the link and utilize your website and find more information. We believe in the free flow of information and want to provide the best resources for our users. The following information is to reciprocate the link on your own website:

Title: Lawyer, Attorney , Legal Advice , New Lawyer (NewLawyer dot com)

Description: Personal Injury Lawyer, Accident Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer, Attorneys, Legal Information

The following are points of information listed on our website:

* Listings of licensed legal professionals
* Blogging information
* Legal news around the country
* Additional resources for the users to take advantage of.
_________

Interestingly, Dominic's email indicated that he was the director of marketing. So either they have multiple directors of marketing, or Dominic got the sack (wishful thinking) or everyone who uses their template falsely claims to be the director of marketing.

I am beginning to get emails from other folks who are ticked at Newlawyer.com. For example, I recently got the following email:

"I just wanted to write and thank you, post reading your article on NewLawyer.com. They approached me this evening with the standardised letter and I found the whole affair a little dubious. Google flagged up your article and it confirmed my sentiments. As there is nowhere on your site to comment, I am e mailing just to say your post is appreciated."

It just seems inevitable that if Newlawyer.com keeps annoying lawyers, eventually one will turn litigious. You've been warned.

UPDATE: I got a second identical email from Steven Kim about 3 hours later. What will it take to stop their emails?

UPDATE 2: Ryan Gile of Las Vegas Trademark Attorney blog also got nailed with the following message:

Dear Mr. Gile,

My name is Michael Foti and I am the Director of Marketing for a network of legal websites that includes Laws.com, NewLawyer.com, Attorney.org, LawSchool.org, and Docket.com. Here at NewLawyer.com, we are running a campaign to highlight some of the top blawgs on the internet. After reviewing your blog, we'd like to include you, and your blawg, in that feature. Below, I've included the code for you to copy and paste into your source to display your NewLawyer.com Top Legal Resource award button. An extraordinary amount of time and effort goes into making a feature like this possible, so all we ask in return is that you display your award banner prominently for all your readers to see. Please email me once you post it so I can check it out. Thank you and congratulations on being one of the top legal resources on the internet!

[snip]

Michael Foti
Director of Marketing, PhoneToPhone Inc.
1 International Blvd. Suite 211 Mahwah, NJ 07495
Office: 201-252-8255
Cell:551-795-2806

UPDATE 3: I posted a critique of Newlawyer.com on SiteJabber.

I have Westlaw alerts set up to notify me when court opinions discuss the major social networking sites. As a result, I am now seeing a steady stream of cases where Facebook or MySpace postings are being used to contradict a litigant's or witness' testimony in a court case. I think the following excerpt from People v. Franco, 2009 WL 3165840 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 5, 2009), where a jury convicted the defendant Franco of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, exemplifies what I'm seeing:

At about 10:30 a.m. on June 6, 2006, Franco and Henry Chavez were seen racing each other in their Mustang vehicles on the Ventura Freeway, each reaching speeds of approximately 100 miles per hour. Franco applied her brakes while Chavez was directly behind her, causing him to lose control of his vehicle. The vehicle travelled to the other side of the freeway, flipped, and landed in a strawberry field. Chavez was killed. Franco did not stop.

Franco testified that she was driving approximately 75 miles an hour on the freeway when Chavez began tailgating her. When she changed lanes, he followed her. Noticing that her speed had increased, she tapped on her brakes to slow down. Chavez veered to avoid hitting her, then lost control of his vehicle. She saw a plume of dust but kept driving as her boyfriend advised when she called him on her cell phone. The day before the accident, however, Franco had written on her MySpace page, “If you find me on the freeway and you can keep up I have a really bad habit of racing random people.”

I know most of us already know this lesson, but this case reminds us that our statements on social networking sites can and will be used against us. It also reminds us how hard it's becoming to maintain multiple persona--in this case, the in-court persona of being a safe and courteous driver while simultaneously maintaining an alternative persona as a "secret" street racer.

If I may, let me propose three rules for avoiding unnecessary trouble:

1) Never tick off a lawyer. They tend to be, you know, litigious by nature.
2) Never tick off a blogger. They tend to be very noisy about their gripes.
3) Never, ever tick off lawyers who also blog. A toxic combination.

Newlawyer.com has pulled off an impressive hat trick of rule violations. I'm not exactly sure I fully understand Newlawyer.com's business, but my superficial review of the site suggests it is some sort of lead generation engine for lawyers.

For some reason, Newlawyer.com has been one of the most aggressive and persistent solicitors of a link exchange I've encountered. Despite the relatively small footprint of my blogs, I get plenty of requests from folks for link exchanges, all of which I categorically turn down. Usually I hit the "report spam" button on Gmail and occasionally I'll write a "no thanks" reply, and either way that ends that. In contrast, I've had more difficulty evading Newlawyer.com because they have telemarketed me at least 6 times, including three phone calls in a 36 hour span earlier this week. I don't understand what kind of boiler room operation they are running, but I can't imagine how calling me 6 times can be cost-justified even if I did agree to the link exchange (which I won't, and you'll notice they aren't getting any link love in this post either). Just how much is a link from my blog worth to them???

I've tried to politely but firmly tell them to buzz off each of the six times they have called me, and each time I get a mea culpa and a broken promise not to keep calling. But I guess in a technical way they have finally honored their promises because today I got a spam from them (see, no phone call!) once again soliciting a link exchange. The email text:
_______

from dominic sebahia
to egoldman@gmail.com
date Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:46 AM
subject i like your blog

Hi,
My name is Dominic and I am the Director of Marketing for NewLawyer.com.I found your blog/website interesting. Our blogs are posted in most of the websites. I want to feature you onto our website and that for absolutely free. Our website is the first telelegal portal that connects attorneys to those in need of legal advice through phone to phone consultations via the technology on our website. I would love to feature your blog on NewLawyer as I believe that many of our Lawyers would enjoy your blog. I was hoping to have NewLawyer added to your blog roll if that would be at all possible. I've included some additional information below and if you have any questions feel free to find my contact info below and call me. I look forward to hearing from you.

We would like to list your blog on our site as an additional resource to our users. We believe that your blog would be a great addition. The blog's website would be linked to our page so that our users would be able to click the link and utilize your website and find more information. We believe in the free flow of information and want to provide the best resources for our users. The following information is to reciprocate the link on your own website:

Title: Lawyer, Attorney , Legal Advice , New Lawyer (NewLawyer.com)

Description: Personal Injury Lawyer, Accident Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer, Attorneys, Legal Information

URL: http://www.newlawyer.com

The following are points of information listed on our website:

* Listings of licensed legal professionals
* Blogging information
* Legal news around the country
* Additional resources for the users to take advantage of.

Dominic
Director of Marketing, PhoneToPhone Inc.
1 International Blvd. Suite 211 Mahwah, NJ 07495
Office: 201-252-8255
Cell:201-663-2565
_______

The silly thing is that if they really believe that linking to my blogs is valuable to their audience, they don't need my permission, and they know it (if for no other reason than I've told them so in a couple of our phone chats). But clearly the flattery and the request to link to me is just a ruse to get me to consider the reciprocal link exchange. Also telling is the reference to my non-existent blogroll (something I've also mentioned to them on the phone).

Now, I'm not a litigious person, so I'm not personally interested in investigating my legal rights against Newlawyer.com for their repeated disregard of my requests. However, in response to my anti-Newlawyer.com Twitter posts, I saw that several other lawyers have been getting bombarded by Newlawyer.com solicitations. It's possible they are not as reticent as I am.

Irrespective of their ultimate legal disposition, it seems like Newlawyer.com is doing a fantastic job of alienating one of its core audiences (lawyers) and building a reputation (but not a good one). Further, should Google get wise to Newlawyer.com's aggressive efforts to generate link exchanges, Newlawyer.com's strategy could very well backfire in a big way.

David Lat, the famous and talented blogger from Above the Law, gave a lunchtime talk today at Santa Clara Law entitled "The End of the World as You Know It: Reflections on the Future of the Legal World." (The talk title was almost as long as the talk). I'm a regular reader of Above the Law, so many of his remarks didn't break much ground compared to the themes already fully vetted in gory detail on the blog. Nevertheless, David always gives an entertaining talk filled with pearls of wisdom, so I never pass up a chance to hear him. A recap of his remarks:

David first described three structural changes affecting the legal industry.

1) erosion (not the death) of the billable hour. Clients want good value, and they want predictability over their expenses. Both factors are driving clients and firms to alternative billing arrangements, such as fixed fee projects and all-you-cat-eat retainers.

A comment on this: when I was in-house, I was a fan of fixed-fee arrangements for their budgetability/predictability. As manager of the company's legal expenses, I needed to keep my expenses within my quarterly budget, so fixed-fee deals were very beneficial to their predictability. One thing I absolutely HATED was when I would get hourly time billed months or even years after the actual work was done--and therefore after the quarter when the money was allocated, meaning the charge would hit a subsequent quarter's budget. I won't name names, but one firm sent me a bill for time TWO YEARS after the work was done. I didn't pay it.

For what it's worth, when I do my side gigs, I also prefer to do fixed-fee projects or monthly retainers. I often end up earning a little less than I might if I billed hourly, but (1) I always feel like I get a fair deal, especially when both the client and I take some risk on the outcome, and (2) I like that clients don't calculate the marginal cost of contacting me (i.e., I don't want to talk with my lawyer because it's going to cost $50 for a brief phone call, and I don't know if that call is worth $50), which means they contact me earlier in their processes when my advice is actually more useful.

2) erosion of locksteps, which is moving towards an increase in meritocracy. The challenge with this movement is setting an appropriate valuation on merit. People aren't entirely clear how to assess quality.

3) erosion of stable employment relationships. The days are gone when lawyers would view the decision to join a firm as a two-way lifetime commitment. Now, attorneys (including partners) are moving between firms regularly, practice groups and offices are spinning off, partners are being de-equitized, and of course, the ubiquitous and dreaded layoffs. There is also an increased customization and flexibility of associate positions. As David said, we might see a "gazillion different titles" for attorneys working for a firm--a trend towards "title proliferation."

David then moved to address what these changes mean.

On the downside, there has been a decline of trust in the industry. For example, a fixed-fee arrangement can be driven, in part, by clients distrusting their attorneys' efforts to keep costs down. But there is also a lot of intra-firm distrust.

On the upside, there has been increased independence in the industry, although this may require attorneys to become more entrepreneurial.

David concluded with two pieces of advice:

1) Stay informed about firms and the industry (an admittedly self-serving piece of advice)

2) Network! In times of crisis, relationships are key. He recommended that students get business cards and hand them out freely. He also recommended that students get to know their classmates and professors as part of network-building.

In the Q&A, a student asked him what changes law schools should make. David rattled off a bunch of ideas in quick succession, including:
* make law school two years (a move I wouldn't necessarily oppose but it is inconsistent with current accreditation norms for the foreseeable future)
* make law school cheaper
* fewer law schools
* more training in the field (like articling)

I asked him about the consequences of a movement from focusing on top-of-market compensation for attorneys, which ATL did obsessively in 2007-08, to multiple compensation models. David expressed concern that customized/individualized compensation would give law firms the ability to reduce their overall associate compensation because there is less transparency. At the same time, both he and I wondered if this reduced transparency might have a salutary benefit of defusing the excessive focus on compensation benchmarking, which might allow attorneys to reset their compensation expectations to how much they need to live a comfortable and satisfied life.

I got an email from a student posing this question to me: what criteria should a technology start-up consider when hiring its first in-house general counsel? I can definitely speak from first-hand experience! Here's my response, but I would also welcome your comments and thoughts. Because blog comments are still off, please email them to me and let me know if I can post them publicly.

[Note: I'm assuming a start-up has already correctly decided that it needs to hire a GC. That consideration could be the subject of another whole post.]
___

In addition to the standard criteria used to evaluate lawyers, like legal acumen and professionalism, I suggest the following criteria:

* past in-house experience. There is a learning curve to being in-house, and someone who has done it before will be initially better equipped to handle the speed of a start-up than someone who is trying to learn how to be an in-house counsel on the fly.

* past experience working in a start-up. Start-ups pose unusual demands on lawyers, and some lawyers can't easily adjust. Therefore, someone who has lived through a start-up environment before will be better prepared for the unique challenges. For more on this, see my recap of my first three months at Epinions.

* willingness to be a line contributor. A start-up has a lot of routine commodity legal work. It also needs to build a lot of unsexy internal processes and needs someone to pay attention to little details--simple things like filing contracts or domain name renewals. So a start-up needs a lawyer who isn't afraid to roll up his/her sleeves and do some mundane legal work his/herself as opposed to delegating the work to others or outsourcing the work to outside counsel.

* not an empire-builder. In the same vein, some lawyers want to build up a resource-intensive legal department, and this is the last thing a start-up needs.

* excellent business judgment. Ideally, a GC at a start-up can contribute to the overall management of the company. This requires a person who can balance legal concerns with other business perspectives. At minimum, a start-up GC needs to be able to triage and decide which of the many legal problems on his/her desk need immediate attention, can wait, or can be ignored entirely.

* someone who can grow with the company. Some companies may have idiosyncratic perennial issues where some background expertise will help, but a GC should be able to grow with the company to handle the full range of legal issues the company is likely to encounter over its lifecycle. It could be a mistake to hire a GC with specific technical expertise only in one area that is a hot button for the company today. Once that issue dies down, the company may be stuck with a GC who isn't adaptable to the many other issues that will arise.

* the ability to say--and sell--"no." Start-up companies--even the best-meaning ones--tend to be willing to push legal limits. However, most in-house counsel are socialized to avoid saying "no" if at all possible. A start-up company needs a GC who can say no when it needs to be said. Further, because people don't like to hear "no," a GC needs to be able to get others to listen when he/she says no. This means wielding the N-word wisely but also having the credibility/salesmanship to make "no" stick when it's wielded.

* interest in the company's products. A start-up job is usually fairly demanding, so it really helps if someone is actually interested (or, better yet, passionate) about the company's products and services. That way, they will be more excited to undertake the sometimes-heroic efforts required to help the company succeed.

UPDATE: I got the following from Josh King at Avvo: "I would add two related points: 1) Your new GC must be flexible enough to not only deal with mundane legal work, but also to do all manner of other work that assistants, secretaries or people in other groups did previously for them. I regularly go on beer runs for the office, deliver mail and shop for office supplies, and supporting the office as a regular member of the team is critical to success in startup culture. 2) In addition to having excellent business judgment and the ability to grow with the business - I've never had an in-house role that didn't morph in wildly unpredictable ways within the first 6 months - your GC must be able to match the company's level of risk aversion. It's a lot easier to sell "no" when you're not wringing your hands over every little potential legal risk the company might face."

As I told Josh in a reply email, WRT #1, I used to restock the snacks in the kitchen and sort the mail.

UPDATE 2: I got the additional comment, which I fully agree with:

"The one consideration that's missing from your list -- the most important one, in my view -- is someone with the trust and confidence of the principal business person, usually the CEO. It does not have to exist prior to hiring -- an investor can and often does install someone of their own choosing. But if the GC and the CEO don't have personal trust and confidence -- both ways -- the GC hire will never contribute at the highest level. Trust and confidence -- all the rest can be learned."

Following Michael Jackson's death, Lisa decided that it would be nice to put together a spinning mix commemorating his music. This is what we came up with:

1. Rock With You
2. Blame It On the Boogie
3. Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)
4. Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'
5. P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)
6. Man In the Mirror
7. When I Think of You (an interlude from Michael's sister Janet)
8. Black or White
9. Fat (this is "Weird Al" Yankovic's spoof of "Bad")
10. Thriller
11. Somebody's Watching Me (from Michael's childhood friend Rockwell; Michael sings prominently in the chorus)
12. I Want You Back
13. Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough
14. ABC
15. Human Nature
16. Never Can Say Goodbye (of course we have to say goodbye to the singer, but we never can say goodbye to the songs)