hobbyjogger

Agreed 100%. Essentially no employees (and nearly no founders outside of your unicorns) have anti-dilution protections against future investment.

Sort of the opposite. The point I'm making (and the author misses) is that a business decision to make huge profits by representing a "bad guy" in society's eyes isn't remotely equivalent to a moral decision that even the worst (and poorest) offenders in our criminal justice system deserve to have a competent advocate on their side. The public defender is admirable precisely because he or she is driven by a belief in justice despite public criticism and low pay - not simply because it's a lucrative opportunity to generate profits.

Consider that Boies makes more in a (long) day working for Weinstein than some public defenders stand to make in a year. Boies has plenty of other clients he could work for and be paid lucratively - public defenders don't have the luxury of choosing their cases (and aren't in it for the money).

Agreed with ss108. Sure, there are a few law schools (among other higher education institutions) that have overreacted to "wokeness." But that plus a few anonymous accounts from (mostly junior) practicing attorneys doesn't at all mean that the movement has "taken over" America's legal system.

Consider that skilled developers might, on principle, prefer not to work at Facebook/Google or in the defense industry, etc. Maybe they just don't agree with the means and ends that a company uses to generate large profits (and salaries). So sure, a good attorney might prefer not to use his or her rare talents to support a business that gets paid millions of dollars to support/justify a cause/person/business/policy that the attorney doesn't personally agree with. Nothing wrong with that - and certainly not proof that the legal system (or tech industry) has been "taken over" by those who simply prefer to work at other firms with missions they believe in.

I don't at all disagree that Weinstein has as much of a right to effective legal counsel as the rest of us.

I'm just pointing out the obvious: there's an enormous difference between (i) an indigent defendant's right to a public defender in a murder trial and (ii) the "right" to be represented in a civil suit by one of the most successful, famous and expensive lawyers in the country. The first is a constitutional right - the second is a market transaction (on both sides).

Same here (M&A/VC lawyer for nearly a decade). Agree 100% on all of the above.

I became skeptical right off the bat when she compared Boies' civil representation of Weinstein (at ostensibly $2,000+ per hour) to the defense attorneys who volunteered to represent Guantanamo detainees.

Delaware (and all or at least most other states) requires at least one member on the board of directors for any corporation, whether it's private or public.

At a $0 valuation (assuming that's accurate) you'd be paying almost nothing to participate in the round (assuming you had a contractual right or were given the opportunity to participate).

It's much more sophisticated than just (a) do you or did you work there and (b) did you make money on a trade.

I work at a law firm that does public M&A deals and we occasionally get inquiries from the SEC about, e.g., people that went to my high school (but a different class year) who bought stock in a company my firm did work for in the months leading up to the deal. Obviously neither me or the other person ever worked at either company (or even had any connection to them), but they still identify us as a potential risk because I could have potentially obtained insider info through the firm and then passed it on.

My uncle sometimes puts his shoes on the wrong feet and once managed to put his jeans on backwards (buttoned but not zipped behind him). As he walked past the doorway my mom (his sister) said, "Your pants are on backwards!"

Without missing a beat, he countered, "Maybe I was going the other way..." and sort of moonwalked back the way he came.

That's tragic--but let's keep it in context. It happened before WWII. Some of these young boys were wearing shorts and sandals (without hats) in a blizzard, climbing up a mountain slope with a 70% gradient (black diamond ski slopes start at 40%), without any sort of topological or detailed map, no lights, no ability to communicate with the outside world and one adult to supervise 27 students. I can't imagine any of those things are true for Gumby's trip.