Client Alert Gets Press
This client alert, published by Paul Hastings, was mentioned in this article published by The Washington Post.
Now . . . why did Kevin Drawbaugh, the author of the article, bother to mention a client alert from Paul Hastings rather than one from some other firm?
There were several reasons. Key among them was that Paul Hastings’ alert was written in such a way that Drawbaugh, a reporter covering financial issues, could read it and quickly comprehend it. In other words, it was written for a broader audience than the alerts published by most firms.
____________
Latham & Watkins also published a client alert on this topic, and I can’t imagine a reporter bothering to read it. Here’s the first paragraph from the Latham & Watkins alert:
Managers in various types of partnerships, such as private equity and hedge funds, often share in the profits of the partnership through a so-called “carried interest.” These interests generally allocate to such managers a percentage of the partnership’s profits (often 20 percent), and such allocations are usually disproportionate in that the percentage of profits allocated to such managers are generally well in excess of the percentage of capital contributed by such managers to the partnership. Under current law, managers are generally not taxed upon the receipt of these interests, and managers who receive these interests are treated as partners in the partnership and hence their allocable share of partnership income, including the character of such income, flows through to such managers. Thus, to the extent that the partnership’s profits constitute long-term capital gains, managers who are individuals are taxed on their allocable share of such capital gains at a maximum rate of 15 percent at the federal level.
____________
In addition to the Paul Hastings alert, I’ve found a few others concerning the recently proposed legislation I’d rank as well done. One is published by White & Case, and another is published by King & Spalding.
12 July 2007 at 9:07
The wily reporter found a readable sentence. Aren’t you going to comment on the writing style in that client alert? It would put most clients to sleep.
12 July 2007 at 10:11
Actually, I was thinking of writing a post about one particular paragraph in that alert, the one that starts out in subjunctive mood for some strange reason:
“Were there any doubt about the seriousness of congressional purpose to examine legislation in this area very closely, it was dispelled by the announcement that hearings in both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee would occur in July. Although enactment of either bill or some variation is far from certain, and the potential of a Presidential veto looms large over any legislation in this area that Congress might pass, intense legislative activity is guaranteed for much of the rest of this year.”
13 July 2007 at 10:47
I am sorry — initially I read only the the first two paragraphs of your post as that was what appeared in my feed at Bloglines.
Now I see that you think that Paul Hastings alert was better written than the Latham Watkins alert.
I do not see it.
Without even speaking to the writing style, just look at the three paragraph preview on the Paul Hastings blawg. The first sentence is 42 words and the second is 55. Even the third, short sentence is 27. That is ridiculous on a blog, and no good in an “alert”, which should be short and scannable.
I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on the lessons to be learned from the particular alerts you cite. I know that we can learn from your insight.
I fell unconscious reading the blawg entry, I cannot imagine reading the whole alert.
13 July 2007 at 11:26
Not sure what you mean about the Paul Hastings blog. Didn’t know the firm had one.
Certainly, the Hastings alert could be much improved by a skilled editor. That’s obvious But, it’s a client alert, and — compared to most — this one is very readable.
Most attorneys at most firms write alerts in a such a way that their potential audience is incredibly small. Very often, the actual audience turns out to be null. The Hastings alert is suitable to a much wider audience than most.
As for word count . . . I wouldn’t give it too much emphasis over other considerations. Consider the opening line to the Declaration of Independence. One of the most memorable of all intros, it contains 70 words.
The Latham & Watkins alert: it reads like it was written by a machine, rather than a human. Of course, it was written by a human, but it seems as if the author was charging by the word and wanted to bill as much as possible. How else to explain such verbosity.