Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:29:33.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professional Innovation: Corporate Lawyers and Private Lawmaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Michael J. Powell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Through an intensive examination of the development and diffusion of a new legal device—the shareholder rights' plan or poison pill—this article demonstrates the entrepreneurial, lawmaking role of corporate lawyers. This study case suggests that corporate lawyers may act as legal entrepreneurs, developing and promoting new legal devices and strategies on behalf of actual and potential clients. If affirmed by the courts, these devices or techniques are rapidly diffused thereby contributing to the creation of new legal knowledge. The creation and successful defense of the shareholder rights' plan led to both new caselaw and statute law. In this way, corporate practitioners contribute to the creation of new legal knowledge, suggesting a bottom-up approach to knowledge creation rather than the conventional top-down view. It is suggested that legal innovations like the shareholder rights' plan are more likely to be developed in newer firms than in established firms and in specialized firms than general service law firms.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Summer 1993 , pp. 423 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1993 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Curran, Barbara A., “American Lawyers in the 1980s: A Profession in Transition,” 20 Law & Soc'y Rev. 19 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Bayless Manning, “Hyperlexis: Our National Disease,” 71 Nw. U.L Rev. 767 (1977); Marc Galanter & Thomas Palay, Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) (“Galanter & Palay”).Google Scholar

3 Derek C. Bok, “Annual Report to the Board of Overseers” (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1983); Jethro R. Lieberman, Crisis at the Bar (New York: Norton, 1978).Google Scholar

4 Yves Dezalay, “Putting Justice ‘into Play’ on the Global Market: Law, Lawyers, Accountants and the Competition for Financial Services” (presented at Law & Society Annual Meeting, Madison, Wis., 1989) (“Dezalay, ‘Putting Justice into Play’”); id., “The Big Bang and the Law: The Internationalization and Restructuration of the Legal Field,”Theory, Culture & Society, July 1990, at 279 (“Dezalay, ‘The Big Bang’”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Jack Ladinsky, “The Impact of Social Backgrounds of Lawyers on Law Practice and the Law,” 16 J. Legal Educ. 127 (1963); Jerome E. Carlin, Lawyers' Ethics: A Survey of the New York City Bar (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966) (“Carlin, Lawyers' Ethics”); John P. Heinz & Edward O. Laumann, Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1982).Google Scholar

6 Jerome E. Carlin, Lawyers on Their Own (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962) (“Carlin, Lawyers on Their Own”).Google Scholar

7 Erwin O. Smigel, The Wall Street lawyer (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964); Robert L. Nelson, Partners with Power: The Social Transformation of the Large Law Firm (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) (“Nelson, Partners with Power”).Google Scholar

8 Carroll Seron, “Managing Entrepreneurial Lawyers: A Variation on Traditional Practice,” in Robert L. Nelson, David M. Trubek, & Rayman L. Solomon, eds., Lawyers ‘Ideals/Lawyers’ Practice (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992); Eve Spangler, Lawyers for Hire: Salaried Professionals at Work (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

9 Douglas E. Rosenthal, Lawyer and Client: Who's in Charge? (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Doreen McBarnet, Conviction (London: Macmillan, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Kenneth Mann, Defending White Collar Crime (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

12 Sarat, Austin & Felstiner, William L. F., “Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer's Office,” 20 Law & Soc'y Rev. 93 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Flood, John, “Doing Business: The Management of Uncertainty in Lawyers' Work,” 25 Law B Soc'y Rev. 41 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 For a discussion, see Richard L. Abel & Philip S. C. Lewis, Lawyers in Society, vol. 3: Comparative Theories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar

15 Charles L. Cappell, “A Legal Elite: Investigations into Professional Politics and the Production of Law” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1982); Terence C. Halliday, Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crises, and Professional Empowerment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) (“Halliday, Beyond Monopoly”); Michael J. Powell, From Upper Class to Professional Elite: The Transformation of the New York City Bar Association (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988).Google Scholar

16 Zemans, Frances K., “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System,” 77 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 690, 690 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Id. at 691.Google Scholar

18 Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).Google Scholar

19 Andrew Abbott, The System of Professions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) (“Abbott, Professions”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Lempert, Richard O., “Mobilizing Private Law: An Introductory Essay,” 2 Law & Soc'y Rev. 173 (1976); Felstiner, William L. F., Abel, Richard L., & Sarat, Austin, “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, and Claiming …,” I 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 631 (198081).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Zemans, , 77 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. at 691.Google Scholar

22 McBarnet, Doreen, “Law, Policy, and Legal Avoidance: Can Law Effectively Implement Egalitarian Policies 15 J.L. & Soc'y 113, 118 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 McBarnet, Doreen, “Law and Capital: The Role of Legal Form and Legal Actors,” 12 Int'l J. Soc. Law 231, 233 (1984).Google Scholar

24 Doreen McBarnet, “It's Not What You Do but the Way You Do It: Tax Evasion, Tax Avoidance, and the Boundaries of Deviance,” in David Downes, ed., Unravelling Criminal Justice: Eleven British Studies 257 (London: Macmillan, 1992) (“McBarnet, ‘It's Not What You Do”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 McBarnet, , 15 J.L. & Soc'y; id., “It's Not What You Do.Google Scholar

26 McBarnet, “It's Not What You DO,” at 266.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 258.Google Scholar

28 See sources cited in note 4.Google Scholar

29 Dezalay, “Putting Justice into Play,” at 17 (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

30 Nelson, Robert L., Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., & Salisbury, Robert H., “Private Representation in Washington: Surveying the Structure of Influence,” 1987 A.B.F. Res. J. 141.Google Scholar

31 Kevin J. Delaney, “Power, Intercorporate Networks, and ‘Strategic Bankruptcy,’” 23 Law & Soc'y Rev. 643 (1989); id., Strategic Bankruptcy: How Corporations and Creditors Use Chapter 11 to Their Advantage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992) (“Delaney, Strategic Bankruptcy”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Robert L. Rabin, “Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law,” 28 Stan. L Rev. 207 (1976); Joel F. Handler, Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, & Howard S. Erlanger, Lawyers and the Pursuit of Legal Rights (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1978.Google Scholar

33 See Zemans, , 77 Am Pol. Sci. Rev., at 693 (cited in note 16).Google Scholar

34 Robert W. Gordon, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of American Enterprise, 1870–1920,” in Gerald L. Ceison, ed., Professions and Professional Ideologies in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983) (“Gordon, ‘Legal Thought’”).Google Scholar

35 Gordon, “Legal Thought” J. Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Lawmakers (New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1950).Google Scholar

36 Deralay, “The Big Bang” (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

37 Hirsch, Paul M., “From Ambushes to Golden Parachutes: Corporate Takeovers as an Instance of Cultural Framing and Institutional Integration,” 91 Am. J. Soc. 800 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 E. Aranow & H. Einhorn, Tender offers for Corporate Control (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

39 Steven Brill, “Two Tough Lawyers in the Tender-Offer Game,” New York Mag., 21 June 1976, at 52–61; John Brooks, The Takeover Game (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1987) (“Brooks, Takeover Game”).Google Scholar

40 Hirsch, , 91 Am. J. Soc.; Brooks, , Takeover Game .Google Scholar

41 Connie Bruck, The Predators' Ball: The Junk Bond Raiders and the Man Who Staked Them (New York: American Lawyer/Simon & Schuster, 1988).Google Scholar

42 See Manne, Henry G., “Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control,” 73 J. Pol. Econ. 110 (1965), for the classic statement; see also Economic Report of the President, House Doc. No. 99–19, 99th Cong., 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Hirsch, , 91 Am J. Soc., at 801.Google Scholar

44 Easterbrook, Frank H. & Fischel, Daniel R., “The Proper Role of a Target's Management in Responding to a Tender Offer,” 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1161 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Peter F. Drucker, “Corporate Takeovers—What Is to Be Done?” 82 Pub. Interest 3 (1986); Robert Kuttner, “The Truth about Corporate Raiders,” New Republic, 20 Jan. 1986, at 14–19; Arthur L. Liman, “Has the Tender Movement Gone Too Far?” 23 N. Y. Law School Rev. 687 (1977–78); Allan Sloan, Three plus One Equals Billions: The Bendix-Martin Marietta War (New York: Arbor House, 1983).Google Scholar

46 Kenneth M. Davidson, Mega-Mergers: Corporate America's Billion-Dollar Takeovers (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1985) (“Davidson, Mega-Mergers”).Google Scholar

47 Connie Bruck, “Inside the Bendix Fiasco,”Am. Law., Feb. 1983, at 35–44.Google Scholar

48 Lipton, Martin, “Corporate Governance: Major Issues for the 1990s,” 20 (2) Dividend 6, 6 (1989).Google Scholar

49 Brooks, Takeover Game 190.Google Scholar

50 Dezalay, “Putting Justice into Play” (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

51 Gustafson, Barbara J., “The Lawyer as Impresario: Form vs. Substance in the Target's Boardroom,” 39 Hastings L.J. 759 (1988).Google Scholar

52 Brill, N.Y. Mag., 21 June 1976 (cited in note 39).Google Scholar

53 Lipton, Martin, “Takeover Bids in the Target's Boardroom,” 35 Bus. Law. 101 (1979).Google Scholar

54 Id.Google Scholar

55 Davidson, Mega-Mergers; Brooks, Takeover Game (cited in note 39).Google Scholar

56 Idalene F. Kasner & Dan R. Dalton, “Antitakeover Tactics: Management 42, Stockholders O,” 28 Bus. Horizons 17 (1985); Arthur Fleischer, Tender Offers: Defenses and Planning (New York: Law & Business, Inc., Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich, 1985); Martin Lipton, Theodore N. Nirvis, & Andrew R. Brownstein, “Takeover Defenses and Directors' Liabilities” (presented to American Law Institute-American Bar Association, 25–26 Sept. 1986) (“Lipton et al., ‘Takeover Defenses’”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Easterbrook, & Fischel, , 94 Harv. L Rev. (cited in note 44); Kasner, & Dalton, , 28 Bus. Horizons (cited in note 56).Google Scholar

58 N.Y. Times, 1 May 1984, sec. 4, at 2, & 21 May 1985, sec. 4, at 10; Corporate Control Alert, May 1984, at 1, 3.Google Scholar

59 Note, “Protecting Shareholders against Partial and Two-tiered Takeovers: The Poison Pill Preferred,” 97 Harv. L Rev. 1964 (1984).Google Scholar

60 Brooks, Takeover Game 194 (cited in note 39).Google Scholar

61 Early attempts to enjoin the adoption of the poison pill failed but did not lead to full litigation. See National Education Corp. v. Bell &. Howell Co. No. 7278 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 1983); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Lenox Inc. No. 83–2116 (D. N.J. June 20, 1983).Google Scholar

62 The primary author of the Note had been employed as a summer clerk at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Karz, thus giving rise to questions about its independence. See David Margolick, “Law Journal Is Caught in Corporate Crossfire,”N.Y. Times, 24 Sept. 1984, sec. 4, at 2.Google Scholar

63 Corporate Control Alert, July 1984, at 1–3.Google Scholar

64 See N.Y. Times, 22 Jan. 1985, sec. 4, at 2.Google Scholar

65 Corporate Control Alert, Nov. 1984, at 8.Google Scholar

66 Industry Week, 18 Feb. 1985.Google Scholar

67 Steven Greenhouse, “New Ways to Stop a Corporate Raider,”N.Y. Times, 22 Aug. 1985, sec. 4, at 4.Google Scholar

68 N.Y. Times, 18 Feb. 1985, sec. 4, at 2.Google Scholar

69 Wall St. J., 20 March 1985, at 6.Google Scholar

70 Davidson, , Mega-Mergers (cited in note 46); Romano, Roberto, “The Political Economy of Takeover Statutes,” 73 Va. L. Rev. 111 (1987).Google Scholar

71 Moran v. Household International Inc., 490 A. 2d 1059 (Del. Ch. 1985); aff'd, 500 A.2d 1346 (Del. 1985).Google Scholar

72 Corporate Control Alert, April 1986.Google Scholar

73 The 263 companies that had adopted poison pills by August 1986 included 114 (or 22.8%) of the Fortune 500 and 74 (or 29.6%) of the Fortune 250. Among those adopting poison pills were such prominent companies as Mobil, Texaco, Time, TRW, Monsanto, Kraft, Safeway, and Honeywell.Google Scholar

74 Everett M. L. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (3d ed. New York: Free Press, 1983) (“Rogers, Diffusion”).Google Scholar

75 Corporate Control Alert, Dec. 1986, at 1.Google Scholar

76 Corporate Control Alert, Feb. 1986, at 7.Google Scholar

77 See Corporate Control Alert, April 1986.Google Scholar

78 Corporate Control Alert, Feb. 1986, at 8–9.Google Scholar

79 Corporate Control Alert, Jan. 1986, at 1.Google Scholar

80 See Corporate Control Alert, August 1987, at 1–3.Google Scholar

81 Corporate Control Alert, Sept. 1987, at 1, 3.Google Scholar

82 Corporate Control Alert, Oct. 1988, at 1, 7–8.Google Scholar

83 Corporate Control Alert, Sept. 1986, at 1, 7–8.Google Scholar

84 Corporate Control Alert, Dec. 1986, at 9–10. See Amalgamated Sugar v. NL Industries Inc., S.D.N.Y., 5 Aug. 1986; Dynamics Corp. of America v. CTS Corp., N.D. III., 3 May 1986; 7th Cir., 3 Nov. 1986.Google Scholar

85 Corporate Control Alert, July 1988, at 1, 8.Google Scholar

86 Corporate Control Alert, April 1988, at 1, 8–9.Google Scholar

87 See City Capital Associates Limited Partnership v. Interco, Inc., 551 A.2d 787, 798–800 (Del. Ch. 1988); Grand Metro. Pub. Ltd. Co. v. Pillsbury Co., 558 A.2d 1049, 1057–60 (1988).Google Scholar

88 Corporate Control Alert, Nov. 1988, at 1, 6–7; Jan. 1989, at 1, 6–7.Google Scholar

89 For example, TW Services Inc. v. SWT Acquisition Corp., Fed. Sec. L. (CCH) 94334 (Del. Ch. 2 March 1989); see also BNS Inc. v. Koppers Co., 683 F. Supp. 469 (1989).Google Scholar

90 Corporate Control Alert, Dec. 1989, at 9.Google Scholar

91 Johnson, Lyman, “The Delaware Judiciary and the Meaning of Corporate Life and Corporate Law,” 68 (5) Tex. L. Rev. 866 (1990).Google Scholar

92 TW Services Inc. v. SWT Acquisition Corp. at 92178. For an interesting discussion of this issue with respect to the poison pill litigation, see Johnson, 68 (5) Tex. L. Rev. Google Scholar

93 Corporate Control Alert, Sept. 1986, at 12–13.Google Scholar

94 Ronald J. Gilson, The Law and Finance of Corporate Acquisitions (New York: Foundation Press, 1990).Google Scholar

95 Id. Google Scholar

96 Davidson, Mega-Mergers (cited in note 46).Google Scholar

97 Greenhouse, N.Y. Times, 22 Aug. 1985 (cited in note 67); Joanne Ganek, “Five Decisions that Shook the World of M & A,”Am. Law. Corporate Scorecard, April 1986, at 9–12.Google Scholar

98 Fiflis, Ted J., “Of Lollipops and Law—A Proposal for a National Policy Concerning Tender Offer Defenses,” 19 U. Cal-Davis L. Rev. 303 (1986); Ganek, Am. Law. Corporate Scoreboard.Google Scholar

99 Hochman, Stephan L. & Folger, Oscar D., “Deflecting Takeovers: Charter and By-Law Techniques,” 34 Bus. Law. 537 (1979).Google Scholar

100 See Lipton et al., “Takeover Defenses” (cited in note 56).Google Scholar

101 Nelson, Partners with Power (cited in note 7); Dezalay, “Putting Justice into Play” (cited in note 4)Google Scholar

102 Of course, the work of legal academics and researchers has contributed substantially to the development of legal knowledge. The historical development of the tort law and the more recent emergence of law and economics are classic examples. The point made here is that the development of new legal devices typically occurs at the practitioner level in response to perceived client needs.Google Scholar

103 A count of entries listed under “Consolidations and Mergers” in the Index to Legal Periodicals for the period September 1973-August 1976 revealed 82 articles compared to 184 for the next three-year periodGoogle Scholar

104 Fleischer, Tender offers (cited in note 56); Martin Lipton & E. Steinberger, Takeovers and Freezeouts (New York: Law Journal Seminar Press, 1978; Supp. 1980).Google Scholar

105 McBarnet, , 12 Int'l J. Soc. Law, at 234 (cited in note 24)Google Scholar

106 Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, “Share Purchase Rights Plan” (unpublished Client Memorandum, 1986).Google Scholar

107 Nelson, Partners with Power (cited in note 7), and Galanter & Palay (cited in note 2)Google Scholar

108 Nelson, , Partners with Power 84 Google Scholar

109 Id. at 81Google Scholar

110 Galanter & Palay at 50Google Scholar

111 See Corporate Control Alert, Dec. 1986 Supp.Google Scholar

112 Corporate Control Alert's Semiannual Lineup and Index (Feb. 1986) of bankers and lawyers involved in contested acquisitions for 1985 found that Skadden Arps and Wachtell Lipton remained the premier firms in this area. Skadden Arps, for instance, was involved in 60% of all major acquisitions during 1985 and Wachtell Lipton in 45%. More recently, however, Corporate Control Alert (Dec. 1989, at 10) has found that the competitive advantage of these two firms appears to have waned. As the poison pill has become more and more common, other firms have increasingly been involved in dispensing themGoogle Scholar

113 Galanter, Marc, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 96 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

114 Delaney, Strategic Bankruptcy (cited in note 31).Google Scholar

115 Nelson, , Partners with Power 273 Google Scholar

116 Id. at 273–74.Google Scholar

117 Robert L. Eccles & Dwight B. Crane, Doing Deals: Investment Banks at Work (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1988).Google Scholar

118 Nelson, Robert L., “Ideology, Practice, and Professional Autonomy: Social Values and Client Relationships in the Large Law Firm,” 37 Stan. L. Rev. 503, 549 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar