“Our many Jewish friends and acquaintances are being taken away in droves.”

Friends:

There are some things I will ever understand: quantum physics, why the sky is blue and why there are some people out there who are so completely clueless.  Certainly much can be explained about a person by an analysis of their upbringing; a life of crime tied to a broken home or uninvolved parents or even children rebelling against too involved and too smothering parents.  But those instances apart, is there really any excuse for simply being brainless and not having any common sense or decency?

Of course I am speaking of the incident last week in Amsterdam involving that paragon of good sense and sensibilities, Justin Bieber, and his visit to the Anne Frank House.  It is possible that with the tragedy and terror in Boston on Monday that the Bieber incident was simply overlooked, but it certainly took me aback when I heard how he acted while visiting such a somber and emotional place.

I have been to the Anne Frank House twice and both times they have been incredibly moving experiences for me.  When you actually see “the attic” where so many people lived under the threat of discovery at any time, you get a strong sense of the triumph of not only the human spirit, but also the will to survive.  That the occupants of the attic lasted over two years in hiding is astounding.  Can you imagine, two years, being forced to stay indoors, to not enjoy the beautiful weather, the holidays, visits with friends?  To be forced to be quiet virtually around the clock.  And to never know from minute to minute if you will be discovered and sent to the death camps.

Anne Frank is inarguably the most famous of the six million Jews exterminated during the Holocaust, so any claims that The Biebs may make to not knowing who she was would be ridiculous.  Although I have not heard that he was unaware of Anne’s importance and notoriety, I raise this simply to quell any claims that Bieber didn’t comprehend Anne’s importance, not just to the Jews, but to humans around the world.  So he clearly knew who she was and yet, with this knowledge, what the heck was he doing acting the way he did and writing the thing he did in the guest book?  Was he raised by monkeys?  Did his parents not teach him better, to be respectful??

In case you don’t know, here is what The Biebs wrote in the guest book at the Anne Frank House:  “Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a Belieber.”  Look, I understand that some people have come to Justin’s defense and spoken out about his conduct at the museum, including Anne Frank’s stepsister, and that they have attempted to downplay his behavior, claiming that Anne probably would have been a Bieber fan (Anne’s stepsister) or proclaiming Justin’s maturity by going to the museum instead of the sex shops in Amsterdam (rapper will.i.am). And whether or not that is true, that Anne would have been a fan of his, was the comment really necessary?  Justin, go ahead, think it in your head.  But what were you hoping to accomplish by writing it down?  Were you trying to be funny?  To lighten the mood of such a somber place?  Do you honestly think that you are bigger than Holocaust?  Anne Frank and her story have survived generations… will you even be remembered in five years?  What could possibly have made you think that this was a good idea?

And yet I have seen nothing from his legion of defenders in response to his play-boxing with his bodyguard while in the basement of the museum.  Oh yeah, and I guess it was too darn bright in the museum that he had to keep his sunglasses on.  I don’t remember any reference in Anne’s diary to her gratefulness at bringing her Ray-Bans with her into hiding because of how bright it was in there.  When I was there, I don’t remember writing that I hope she would have been a Dodger fan…

When I was 12 years old my parents and my brother and I went to Paris and London on vacation and while in London we visited the Tower of London and the crown jewels.  At that time, before they renovated the crown jewel displays, visitors could simply walk around the exhibits to get better views.  While my dad and I were still looking, my mother and brother walked to a spot against the wall and out of the way to wait.  Being the affectionate family that we are, my mom and brother were hugging… until, that is, a guy in a uniform found on a gin bottle came and asked them to leave because that type of conduct was not to be tolerated in the exhibit hall.  Hmm, I wonder if play-boxing with a bodyguard would have been ok…

I have been to many museums and seen many tour groups of students.  At the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles especially I have noticed groups of ethnically diverse students visiting and hopefully learning about tolerance and the terrors of genocide.  Understanding that there are some bad eggs in every bunch, I hope and pray that the vast majority of the students are responsive and sensitive and courteous; basically that they act better than The Biebs acted.  Because whether or not he intended or even desired to be a role model, that is exactly what he is.  And if he feels that it is appropriate to act the way he did and to write such egotistical and asinine comments as he did, then he is a singer I will definitely ensure my children never listen to. 

And all I can do is teach my children to be much more respectful… come on, he’s 19 years old and touring the world.  Shouldn’t he know better?

And all I could think about was, “Where was his mother?  Did she not raise him better than that?”

You may think I am overreacting, that he is just a kid and kids do stupid things, and he obviously meant no harm by it.  But at what point do we stop giving kids a pass on things and start expecting them to act like responsible adults?  If he is mature enough to travel around the world and own homes and cars and monkeys, then isn’t he also mature enough to know when it’s ok to act like a kid and when he has to act more grown up?

Advertisements

“Why don’tcha look in a mirror? This is a white man’s game!”

Friends:

I feel that one of the most important things that I can teach my children is our family’s history.  For instance, when my daughters learn about Henry Ford and his revolutionary invention, the automobile, they will also learn that their great-grandfather’s parents helped Ford on his path by providing him with the tools and materials that he needed to accomplish his vision.  They will learn about how their great-grandmother’s father moved the family to Los Angeles from Youngstown, Ohio right after World War II began, because if he was going to die he wanted to die where it was warm.  And they will learn that their great-grandmother’s grandparents came to the United States from Russia to escape the hate and violence that was directed towards them because of their religion.

Fortunately they also have the opportunity to learn about another part of their family history this coming weekend when we will be taking our older daughter to see the Jackie Robinson movie “42.”  As you may know, Monday, April 15 is Jackie Robinson Day around Major League Baseball, with everyone in baseball wearing Jackie’s number 42 in dedication to his historic and heroic efforts in breaking baseball’s color barrier.  This year, 2013, will signify the 66th anniversary of Jackie’s first game and the release of the film “42” was designed to correspond with this anniversary.

My older daughter, Brooklyn, is 7 ½ and I have wrestled with the concept of taking her to see the movie which has been rated PG-13.  Aside from the concern that she will be unable to sit still for 2 hours to watch the film, more importantly is the worry that she may hear language and epithets that are simply inappropriate for adults let alone 7 year olds.  So the internal struggle has been waged but I think that my wife and I have decided that we will allow her to see the film nevertheless; we will just have the discussion with her as to the language and attempt to instill in her the same level of detestation that most of society has for such language.  Frankly, I do not believe that those concerns are significant enough to deter me from using this movie as a chance to teach Brooklyn about her family.

You all know that we are a Dodger family; through good and bad we bleed Dodger blue.  Whether it is Lasorda and O’Malley or McCourt or the Fox Group, we love our team and pull for its success.  But there is more to our affection for the team than just the product on the field or the championships they have won.  There is a significant level of pride for what our team has accomplished by way of civil rights and equality.  Aside from Jackie Robinson there is Sandy Koufax, the first superstar Jewish player to refuse to play on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish religion, despite the fact that it was the first game of the World Series.  There is Fernando Valenzuela, the Mexican pitcher who united an entire city.  And there is the Dodgers’ unfailing commitment to developing ballplayers all over the world.  The Dodgers have always been a socially conscious and forward thinking baseball team; not just 25 guys trying to win a championship, but an entire organization trying to effectuate change. 

Of course, the Dodgers greatest contribution to baseball and the country as a whole was its support of Jackie Robinson.  But while much is made of Jackie and his heroism, it is easy to overlook the contribution of the rest of the team who stuck by Jackie, played alongside Jackie and came to his defense when others tried to denigrate him.  I am not saying that they were all saints, but there is a reason why there is a statue of Jackie Robinson and Pee Wee Reese in Brooklyn.  It took two to tango, so to speak, and the day Jackie made his debut, there were 8 other people on the field playing alongside him.

Some of my earliest memories were of the Dodgers; my first game was in 1982 when I was 6 years old.  By comparison, Brooklyn’s first baseball game was when she was 5 months old and she has since been to countless games.  The Dodgers are as much a part of our family as my grandmother.  (In fact, we celebrated my grandmother’s 85^th birthday at Game 3 of the 2008 NLDS at Dodger Stadium.)  And as I said, it is important that we teach our children about our family’s history.  Jackie Robinson and his heroism is as much a part of our history as the Model T.  It isn’t every day that they make a movie of your family’s history.  Lucky for me, they have.

“I’m bad, and that’s good. I will never be good, and that’s not bad.”

Friends:

“It’s just after so many years, it becomes kind of hard to love your job when no one seems to like you for doing it.”

Much of my law practice is predicated on me being a necessary evil, the professional the clients don’t want to hire, but feel they have to because they have no other choice.  Whether it is because someone has sued them or someone has wronged them and their only recourse is to pursue legal remedies, attorneys are frequently looked at as a last, expensive, resort, when all other efforts have failed.  And litigators especially are doomed from the start.  If they win the case, they did their job and charged too much; if they lose, then they did something wrong and they charged too much.

The quote above is from the Disney animated film, “Wreck It Ralph” and is spoken by the main character as he is attending a support group for video game bad guys.  Ralph understands that without him there would be no video game, for without the bad guy there is nothing for the good guy to do; but he still would rather experience the jubilation of being the good guy just once. 

I am sure that many of you, at some time or other in your career, have felt as if your client would rather not have to use your services.  The accountants especially must feel this way every tax season; as their clients lament having to file their tax returns and pay taxes, an accountant, while indispensable, is clearly a necessary evil and someone people would prefer not to have to pay.

Even though we as professionals are confident in our skills and committed to doing the absolute best for our clients, it certainly impacts our performance if we have the knowledge that our clients have our backs the same way we have theirs.  I have definitely had clients who are appreciative of me and my skills and have thanked me for providing the services, yet I know that in the back of their minds, they wish they didn’t have to utilize my services.  Whether it is business formation or transactions, estate planning or even, worst of the worst, litigation, the clients are always second-guessing their need for your services.  Isn’t there a computer program that could do the same thing, but cheaper?  Why am I paying you so much money when I could do it myself for 1/4^th as much? 

So much of this feeling is predicated on the cost of the services being provided.  And I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a profession that isn’t or wouldn’t be affected in this same way.  Attorneys and accountants, definitely.  Real estate brokers, sure.  Insurance brokers?  Is there any doubt?  Whatever service we provide, it always costs too much, right?  Surely there are some who appreciate it, but in this time of economic uncertainty, am I cynical to think that more often than not the clients would prefer not to have to use my services?

So after a while you have to think that it would start affecting performance, right?  How do we as professionals continue to put our best foot forward and give it our best efforts?  As Ralph said, it is hard to do your job when no one seems to like you for doing it. 

I have a client right now who clearly could fall into this boat.  She is involved in a trust dispute with her four siblings and has been forced to hire an attorney because all of her other siblings have lawyered up already.  She certainly would prefer not to have to spend the money with me, but feels as if she has no choice since everyone else has their own fire power behind them.  What should be a simple issue resolved by the siblings themselves has gotten more complicated and definitely more expensive.  This client, however, did something that was remarkable in my eyes.  The other evening she sent me an email that said, simply, thank you for handling this.  I don’t remember the last time I have heard/seen those words and it was refreshing, to say the least.

So I guess that is the answer:  for every client who sees you as the necessary evil, the trick is to find the client who truly appreciates what you do and values the services you provide; the client who doesn’t look at you as the more expensive alternative to a “do-it-yourself” program or the hired gun who charges too much.  I think that one way to build that is to maintain strong communication with my client.  The more my client hears from, the more comfortable they will feel with the services I provide.  I typically do not charge for phone calls or emails because I want my clients to be comfortable contacting me with problems or questions and not be worried about getting a bill for the time.  I would rather they call and get the answer they need than be apprehensive about calling and thus make a bad decision.

But it does get hard, especially with as much litigation as I do, because no one likes the idea of being in litigation.  It is expensive, it is inefficient, it is lengthy and virtually all-consuming and anyone involved in it feels that attorneys are a necessary evil—they are necessary, but also evil.  And it sometimes gets difficult to do the job when people dislike you for doing it.

Have any of you felt this way before?

Have a great week and enjoy the opening of the baseball season!

Rob