Grooming a Successor Autocrat? Not So Fast

Autocrat (def.) a person having unlimited power.

Highly successful entrepreneurs become autocrats inside their companies. Benign sometimes, benevolent sometimes, approachable perhaps, but no one doubts who has the last word, who makes the final decision. Beloved by some employees, feared by all, the autocratic entrepreneur rules.

I have encountered a number of entrepreneurial autocrats who are grooming their successors to rule as they have ruled: absolutely.

Problem is: family members (and often employees) won’t accept successors’  autocratic leadership styles. The pushback runs like this:

“We took it from him but we’re not going to take it from you!”

His father and uncle groomed Jay Schottenstein as their successor autocrat to rule their rich retailing empire with an iron hand. Headquartered in Columbus, the Schottenstein name carries lots of weight in Ohio. Indeed, basketball star Lebron James nominated Jay for Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people.

Jay’s sisters Susan and Ann (who don’t hold him in such high esteem) are demanding that Jay be removed as trustee of trusts that hold big stakes in family brands such as American Eagle Outfitters, DSW, Cannon, Bugle Boy and Steuben Glass. After a quiet year-long court battle Forbes magazine broke the story (“The Schottenstein Family Feud, June 30, 2010.)

In their lawsuits, his sisters allege that Jay (who inherited twice as much as his sisters’ families) used his office as trustee to favor his own children over theirs, failed to make adequate distributions to his sisters’ families, imprudently invested trust assets (e.g. with Bernie Madoff) and used his trustee powers to elect himself as chairman of important family companies thereby acquiring valuable stock options that diluted his sisters’ shareholdings.

Jay responded that his sisters were simply bitter and resentful that he was left in charge and with a double share for himself, that all beneficiaries had received lavish returns as a result of his management, and counterclaimed for compensation as trustee.

The Schottenstein autocracy apparently extends to affiliated public companies controlled by a family holding company. (Forbes, “The Wasteland” November 24, 2003.) The holding company charges its affiliates fees for legal services, benefit plan work, insurance administration, store planning and design, importing merchandise and real estate management.

The charter of one affiliate permits its officers and directors to give preferential treatment to the parent holding company without violating their fiduciary duties. So long as they follow prescribed procedures, management and the board may make choices that adversely affect the affiliate’s best interests. Moreover, the family holding company may “cherry pick” business opportunities for itself while absolving its officers and directors of liability to shareholders of publicly held affiliates for doing so.

Siblings may tolerate an autocratic father, but not an autocratic sibling. This is the lesson of Schottenstein and the families I’ve encountered who have tried to impose a successor autocracy upon unwilling siblings.

It’s hard enough for a sibling to function as first among equals.

Start succession planning there.

Forget successor autocracy.

- Gerald Le Van
Chair - Family Wealth Mediation
Upchurch Watson White and Max

“…except in Sharia”

I once spoke to the Texas Bar Association on the topic:

“…except in Louisiana”.

The other forty-nine states share English common law origins whereas Louisiana’s legal system evolved from the civil law of continental Europe via the Code Napoleon.

The outcome in many cases would be the same under either legal system, though vocabulary, procedure and basic concepts might vary. In other instances, the result could be dramatically different, especially if the matter involves trusts, estates, or Louisiana-situs property. Doubts about these differences have spawned a familiar footnote in American legal literature, “…except in Louisiana”. 

Thirty years’ residence there among some truly wonderful human beings convinced me that Louisiana is not so different from other states except for better food, more colorful politics, and some quaint accents. Their unique legal system doesn’t make Louisianans a different species.

Can the same be said about Muslims and their sharia law? Sharia (literally “the path to water”) is a catch-all term for Islamic codes regulating everything from social mores to crime. Sharia is based on the Koran, sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, and the work of Muslim scholars. In some matters, such as family law, sharia is clear and strict; in others, such as commerce, it is more fluid and evolutionary.

An Economist essay (October 16, 2010, p.71) sheds some light on sharia’s current encounter with the West. The word sharia may evoke revulsion as legal authority for corporal and capital punishments -- stoning for adultery, death for abandoning Islam, whipping for consuming alcohol or severing the hand of a thief. Muslims themselves disagree over how, if at all, these ancient punishments should be practiced in the modern world. Revolting as these penalties may be, there is no prospect of their imposition in any Western country. Muslims who would take sharia punishments into their own hands would face stern Western justice.

Sharia generates genuine dilemmas in secular countries with big Muslim populations, not for criminal retribution but in family matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody. English-speaking countries are increasingly invested in alternative dispute resolution such as binding arbitration or mediation.  Now Islam-based arbitrators and mediators are entering the market. Both the procedures and the general ethos of Muslim mediation are very different from the Western model.

Among Britain’s two million Muslims, sharia-based family law both reflects and somewhat mitigates their Islamic conservatism. Since 1980, a network of sharia councils has offered thousands of rulings to troubled families, many involving women who have obtained civil divorces but need an Islamic divorce to remarry within their faith. These councils can overrule a husband’s objections but at a price: the woman may be required to forfeit her marriage settlement. Cases of domestic violence may produce a scolding or referral to an anger management course rather than a safe house for the victim and prosecution of the offender. Muslim tribunals still follow sharia intestacy laws that give daughters half as much as sons.

In Canada, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have stripped religious tribunals (Jewish and Catholic included) of legal enforcement and stiffened rules on arbitrator qualifications and record-keeping. This hasn’t stopped devout Canadian Muslims from seeking religious guidance on family and personal matters. As one professor cautions: “Because religious arbitration now takes place mainly outside the scrutiny of the courts, there is no way to tell whether women are being treated well or badly.”

In the U.S. both secular and religious arbitration are firmly established. Christian and Jewish arbitration is well-organized. The Muslim variety is low-key and less formal but not especially controversial.

In continental Europe (the source of Louisiana’s legal heritage) law and politics leave little room for cultural exceptions to dispute resolution, though knotty issues of Islamic family law have arisen where Muslims remain citizens of their native countries. Courts try to apply the native laws of foreign passport-holders so long as the outcome doesn’t offend “public order” i.e. outrage public opinion.

Polygamy is a tricky issue. French law outlaws polygamy and denies second wives the right to join their husbands in France. Nor do the French enforce sharia talaq by which a Muslim man simply renounces his wife, unless both parties to the failed marriage testify that talaq has taken place in some Islamic country.
When legal principles clash with social reality, the results can be messy. Islam prohibits Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men. Italy requires Muslim women to obtain consent to a mixed marriage from their embassy, usually refused unless the prospective husband converts to Islam.

In northern Greece a Muslim community of some 100,000 has lived under Islamic family law since Ottoman times. Nothing stops a Greek man from going to state courts but public pressure impels most to settle things through the local mufti. Indeed, how many Americans forego enforceable civil rights because of similar cultural or religious pressures?

Turkey has applied for admission to the European Union. By some Western standards, Turkey though largely Muslim is thought sufficiently “progressive” to be qualified for EU membership. Yet Turkey today manifests deep tensions between modernism and ancient Islamic traditions embodied in sharia.

If admitted, what role will sharia play in Turkey’s EU membership? And what role will sharia continue to play among devout Turks who work in France, Germany and the UK? Or indeed among 300,000 Muslim-Americans residing in Detroit, two-thirds of whom are U.S. born?

As a Louisiana lawyer and law professor, I did my share of griping about Louisiana’s legal system where, in my view, it was out of step with the times. I also defended Louisiana law against outside critics who demeaned it simply because it was “other” or “different” or “French”.

While Western countries are taking a pragmatic approach towards sharia’s role in Muslim family life, I’m not at all sure that Muslim scholars and judges will respond pragmatically in kind. Several years ago I worked with a number of Muslim business families in Egypt. [See, Le Van, “Egyptian Business Families – An American View” Families in Business March/April 2004] When, during a Cairo seminar, I used the word “pragmatic” hands went up asking for its meaning. Though fluent in English, the Egyptian participants seemed puzzled by my offhand definition: “do what works". So I groped for a familiar illustration. I recounted how the French began construction of the Panama Canal using the same engineering assumptions earlier employed at Suez: remove all the rock and soil between two bodies of water. The French failed because a mountain range traversed the Isthmus of Panama. It was impossible to remove all the rocks and soil between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Successful completion of the Panama Canal fell to an American railroad engineer who did what worked. His solution uses ships towed by railroad engines to climb the mountains through a series of locks.

I'm not sure my Egyptian audience grasped that illustration of pragmatism, or the concept itself. "Do what works" can be unsettling. Pragmatism can seem alien to the spiritually certain.

Someone may have already addressed the Texas Bar on the topic:

“…except in Sharia”.  

We live in interesting times.

- Gerald Le Van
Chair - Family Wealth Mediation
Upchurch Watson White and Max

Ambivalence: Healthy Indecision?

With the election just weeks away, you’d think that every American has surely chosen between the widely polarized candidates.

Yet pollsters insist there’s still a significant pool of undecided voters.  And other significant pools who may decide not vote at all. Hence the blistering last-minute (mostly negative) media blitz.

My last post reviewed the recent book, “How We Decide”. This post is about how we don’t decide – about ambivalence.

Some of us are quick-deciders whose rush to judgment omits later data and doesn’t allow time for intervening circumstances to evolve. Others are slow to decide, waiting for clarifying data to emerge, watching for events to unfold that may render decision-making unnecessary.

For some of us, everything must be certain -- black or white. We live in a world of clear choices. We speak our minds, make quick decisions, are less anxious about wrong choices, have fewer protracted problems in relationships, are less likely to consider others points of view. Perhaps we fell in love and got married right away.

Others of us comfortably navigate a world of grays, avoiding decisions if possible, feeling more regret after making them, thoughtful about making the right choice, staying longer in unhappy relationships, appreciating diversity and multiple points of view. We may spend hours in the sock aisle weighing the pros and cons of wool argyles vs. cotton stripes.

Perhaps culture plays a leading role. Western cultures need to put things in boxes while eastern philosophies have long acknowledged dualism: that something can be one thing as well as another. East and west collide in the Puzzlement Song made famous by Yul Brynner in “The King and I”:

There are times I almost think 
I am not sure of what I absolutely know. 
Very often find confusion 
In conclusion I concluded long ago 
In my head are many facts that, as a student, I have studied to procure, 
In my head are many facts.. 
Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!


Black-and-white thinkers can get mired in one point of view, can’t appreciate others’ positions, can create conflict with unhealthy behaviors. Persons afflicted with clinical depression get stuck in a negative view of the world, are supersensitive to perceived slights, have trouble thinking about alternative explanations.

Ambivalent people are prone to examine all sides of an argument, scrutinize the evidence, reject oversimplification. The mixed emotions they feel make them better able to empathize with others points of view. Feeling mixed emotions makes them better able to cope with loss and disappointment. And they’re more creative since they consider all sorts of ideas a black-and-white thinker would dismiss out of hand.

Ambivalence about one’s job isn’t helpful. Those who aren’t ambivalent about their work perform it well if they like it, poorly if they don’t. Black-and-white employees focus on pay or whether they like their boss, but not on the total job.

The same goes for human relationships: black-and-white thinkers focus on a few of the other person’s good qualities while gray-thinkers can’t seem to put the other’s negative traits out of their mind. They can feel hurt or abandoned in the midst of their partner’s doing something nice. Nevertheless, recognizing a partner’s strengths and weaknesses is normal and a certain degree of relational ambivalence can be a sign of maturity.

Psychologists use various tests to tell if a person sees the world as black and white or shades of gray, or somewhere in between. Here are two such quizzes:

How You See Relationships
Rate each statement on a scale of one to nine, with one being the least ambivalent and nine being the most.


_____I am confused about my feelings toward my partner.


_____I think about or worry about losing some of my independence by being involved with my partner.


_____I am ambivalent or unsure about continuing in the relationship with my partner.


_____I feel that my partner demands or requires too much of my time and attention.


_____I feel “trapped” or pressured to continue in this relationship.

Total Scores
5-9 = very low ambivalence
10-13 = low ambivalence
14-18 = average
19-23 = high ambivalence
24-45 = very high ambivalence
*Source: Adapted from Braiker & Kelly’s Construct of Ambivalence

How You See Your Work

Rate each statement on a scale of one to six, with one being ‘completely incorrect’ and six being ‘completely correct.’

_____I have positive and negative feelings toward my job at the same time.

_____When I look at my job, thinking and feeling tell me different things.

_____I am torn in my attitude toward my job.

_____I face my job with mixed feelings.

_____My view of my job includes positive and negative ideas.

_____My feelings toward my job are conflicting with my ideas about my job.

_____My attitude toward my job is mixed.

Total Scores

Sum up your scores from each of the seven items.

If you scored a 24 or below, you likely have little ambivalence about your job.

If you scored a 25 or higher, you likely have a greater amount of ambivalence about your job.

Note: These scales are meant only to be informative.

*Source: Adapted from Riketta & Ziegler’s job ambivalence measure.

For this post I’ve borrowed heavily from “Why So Many People Can’t Make Decisions” (Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2010) where columnist Shirley Wang notes that ambivalence has only recently attracted psychologists’ attention. According to the therapists she interviewed, thinking in shades of gray is a sign of maturity – a coming to grips with the world’s complexity. Yet there are few clues as to why we handle uncertainty so differently. 

In my view, much of the loud and angry polarity we’re witnessing today – political and otherwise -- is not so much conflict between opposing and unbending certainties, as it is natural (and perhaps irreconcilable) tensions between certainty and ambivalence. 

As Yul Brynner puzzled:

When I was a boy 

World was better spot. 

What was so was so, 

What was not was not. 

Now I am a man; 

World have changed a lot. 

Some things nearly so, 

Others nearly not.

- Gerald Le Van

Chair – Family Wealth Mediation

Upchurch Watson White & Max

How We Decide

Plato and Descartes taught that important decisions should be made rationally and unemotionally. That’s an elegant idea but not the way our brains really work according to Jonah Lehrer* author of How We Decide (Mariner 2009).

Using MRIs to monitor our brains during the decision process, neuroscientists are discovering:

1. Our emotional brains are like highly developed supercomputers
2. By comparison, our rational brains are more like hand-held calculators.
3. Our rational brains can handle only a few variables at one time – perhaps only four, no more than nine.
4. For simple decisions defer to reason. If there’s no qualitative difference between products, choose the lowest price. The rational brain likes numbers. Too often we let emotional impulses decide small stuff that’s much better done by invoking reason – like whether to use credit cards.
5. Complex decisions involving lots of variables can overwhelm the rational brain, e.g. buying a house or a car. Think less about your more important choices and let your emotions choose. Price is a concern of course, but only one variable among the many that contribute to your ultimate satisfaction with what you buy.
6. Chess is a rational game. That’s why computers can beat grand masters. Poker is both rational and emotional: reason counts the cards but intuition calls a bluff.
7. If the problem is unique put reason to work. If the problem is really novel emotions can’t save you. Emotions will search your past for a pattern to follow but there is none. The way out of a unique mess is a reasoned creative solution. Emotions aren’t irrelevant however. It helps to be in a good mood when tackling an unprecedented situation. Your prefrontal cortex works better when it’s not busy trying to manage your emotional life.
8. Embrace uncertainty. Overconfidence in poker or the stock market can lead to disaster. Consider the competing arguments on both sides unfolding in your head. Bad decisions happen when the neural quarrel is cut short. Always entertain competing hypotheses. Continually remind yourself of what you don’t know. Unforeseeable events can undo the most elegant models and theories. Colin Powell demanded of his advisors: “Tell me what you know, and then tell me what you don’t know, and then tell me what you think.” 
9. You know more than you think you do. Your conscious brain is unaware of all the neural activity taking place outside your prefrontal cortex. This is why people have emotions. Emotions are windows into the unconscious -- visceral representations of all the information we process but don’t perceive. That’s why, with its huge computational capacity, the emotional brain is particularly useful in helping us make hard decisions. 
10. Emotions have turned our mistakes into educational events from which we constantly benefit. Wisdom through error. Feelings -- not reason -- capture the wisdom of experience. 
11. But don’t always trust the emotional brain. Instead be constantly aware of the type of decision you’re making and the type of decision process it requires. Study your brain at work. Listen to the argument inside your head.  Think about how you think. Stay aware of how your mind tricks itself into foolish behavior. Become a student of your own errors, determined to learn from what went wrong, and how to avoid them next time. 
12. The most astonishing thing about the human brain is its capacity to improve itself – to improve its decision-making

Lehrer’s book is a bit ragged and I suspect hastily written. A casual reader could lose interest before the above conclusions appear on the last few pages. One more good edit could have remedied these shortcomings. A good editor might have suggested that the book begin with these nuggets. So now forearmed with these nuggets I think you will enjoy How We Decide.

- Gerald Le Van

Chair, Family Wealth Mediation Group

Upchurch Watson White & Max

*Jonah Lehrer is an Editor at Large for Seed Magazine and the author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist. He graduated from Columbia University and studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He’s written for The New Yorker, Nature, Wired, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe. He is also a Contributing Editor at Scientific American Mind.

How Creative Elders Invest Their Late-Life Inheritance

In Get Low, veteran screen actor Robert Duval adds yet another riveting performance to a distinguished filmogrophy that includes To Kill a Mockingbird, Tender Mercies, The Great Santini, Lonesome Dove, Apocalypse Now and of course The Godfather trilogy. Now almost 80, how does Duval keep doing it?

Recent research confirms that most of us can reach age 88, barring accident or an unhealthy lifestyle. And though dementia may lurk, the good news is that our brains may actually improve as we age -- a welcome late-life inheritance.

An emerging body of research shows that a surprising array of mental functions hold up well into old age, while others actually get better.

Vocabulary improves, as do other verbal abilities such as facility with synonyms and antonyms. Older brains are packed with more “expert knowledge”… They also store more “cognitive templates,” or mental outlines of generic problems and solutions that can be tapped when confronting new problems…

Where once it took hours of methodical scrutiny to understand a prospectus, for instance, older lawyers and investment bankers can zoom in on crucial sections and fit them into what they already know.

While younger brains solve problems step by step, older brains call on cognitive templates, those generic outlines of a problem and a solution that worked before. It's the feeling people get when they see that a new situation or problem belongs to a class of situations or problems they've encountered before, with the result that they don't have to attack problems methodically.

Yes, older people forget little things, and may have occasional attention lapses, but their cognitive templates are so rich that they more than hold their own. Their brains can keep up even with a diminished supply of blood and oxygen. As a result, older professionals can readily separate what's important from what's not – a big reason why so many of them fire on all cognitive cylinders well past age 65.
* Sharon Begley, “Parts of brain seem to get better with age” Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2007

My contemporaries confirm this brain improvement phenomenon. So does my own experience.
Like most lawyers I was a compulsive note-taker. But it’s rare that I need the detail preserved in those copious notes. So I’ve shifted gears.

Writing furiously while others speak risks missing critical non-verbal nuances -- eye movements, voice tones, pauses, body language -- that subtle unspoken connection in human encounters that communicates much more than words. Indeed, can a transcript ever do justice to a deposition or a trial?

Giving my undivided attention to people speaking has all but supplanted words on the pad. I still jot down important numbers and a few key words, but no more narratives. Within 24 hours after the meeting, I write down brief impressions and conclusions that prompt the patterns in my aging brain to save what’s needed and to delete the clutter.

Susan Krause Whitbourne connects aging creativity and one’s work:
Openness to new ideas and a flexible attitude toward change are the essence of creativity. Perhaps it is for this reason that creative artists and musicians such as Picasso, Verdi, and Tony Bennett maintained their youthful vitality until so late in life.

Analyzing the lives of a set of six highly creative older adults, Italian researcher Antonini identified a passionate commitment to pursuit of their discipline as the common thread. These creative elders also shared the trait of flexibility or plasticity and rather than dwell on their accomplishments of the past, looked forward to new goals and new creative enterprises. They maintained their curiosity and, similar to the quality of openness to experience, were able to keep up with their times and adapt to changing circumstances.
*The Flexible Brain: How Creativity Affects Aging 

Some future film may capture Robert Duval’s greatest performance.

For creative elders it’s healthy to assume our best work still lies ahead …then get after it.

Our aging brains will find ways to keep up the pace.

A wise and creative investment of our late-life inheritance.

- Gerald Le Van

Chair, Family Wealth Mediation Group
Upchurch Watson White & Max

What’s New with Genes? Biology 2.0

An Executive Summary

by: Gerald Le Van

Longevity Genes. My mother’s older sister lived to 101.

Do I have longevity genes like my aunt?

If I do, would I want to know it?

There are about 80,000 centenarians in the U.S. alive at one time. Nicholas Wade reports that scientists studying more than 1000 Caucasian centenarians in New England have identified 150 genetic variants that predict extreme longevity with 77% accuracy. Interestingly, 23% of the centenarians in the group didn’t have the particular gene variants the researchers monitored. (“Genetic Finding May Provide a Test for Longevity” NY Times July 1, 2010)

These longevity genes seem to trump disease-causing genes that would otherwise shorten life spans. Research suggests that 15% of the U.S. population have the potential to live to 100, barring accidents or unhealthy lifestyles. A genetic test for longevity genes isn’t yet available. The good news is that most of us have genes that will get us to age 88 if we exercise, avoid obesity, don’t smoke and don’t drink too much.

“Biology 2.0”. The Economist recently published a 14-page executive summary updating genetic research (“Biology 2.0” June 19, 2010 pp. 3-16). This is my executive summary of theirs.

Three billion dollars was spent to sequence the three billion letters of the human genome, completed in 2003. Increased computer power and improved DNA sequencing will reduce time and cost of genome mapping. Today a human genome can be read in eight days at a cost of less than $10,000. Evolving technology may soon read it in fifteen minutes for less than $1000.

Borrowing a computer analogy: the chemicals in a cell are the hardware; DNA information is pre-loaded software. The interaction of cellular chemicals is like the constantly changing interaction between memory chips and processing chips.

How our genes “express themselves” is vastly more complex than once thought. Yet biologists believe they will soon understand perfectly how a cell works, and ultimately how assemblages of cells operate in plants and animals. Since 2003, scientists have constructed an organism with a completely synthetic genome, and completed the genome of our closest relative, Neanderthal man, who lacked several critical homo sapiens genes that enable speech and higher cognitive abilities.

Practical applications of the new genomics range from DNA identification, to what goes wrong in cancer cells, to deeper understanding of human behavior (whether healthy or pathological) to better medical diagnosis and treatment. We may yet understand “in pitiless detail” what it is to be human.

Pharmacogenetics. Genomics has not yet delivered the cornucopia of drugs promised early on and few are in the pipeline. Pharmacogenetics seeks to match drugs to a patient’s genomes. Pharmacogenetics could be a boon to patient and drug companies alike, e.g. FDA approval for a given drug only for patients who might benefit from it.

First, however, more must be learned about how genes function and how they are related to disease. All this is fiendishly complex. For example, that hemophila and sickle cell anemia runs in families is fairly easy to connect genetically. But the tendency of relatives to suffer heart disease, strokes, late-onset diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease is less clear cut. Mutations across generations may not cause these diseases but simply create greater risk of contracting them. Environmental factors may also play a role. Meanwhile drug makers seem to seek the quiet life -- healthy balance sheets not drained by the costly research necessary to unlock these healing secrets.

Bio-banking of large samples of now less-expensive DNA information may yield breakthroughs in understanding heart disease and stroke. Turning data into knowledge and thence into pharmaceuticals is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

Cancer. Cancer is the focal point of genetic medicine. Cancer is known to be a genetic disease and its victims and their oncologists are willing to take greater risks for a cure. Understanding more about gene mutations (“oncogenes”) will help physicians select the appropriate cancer treatment the first time on rather than by trial and error. Some predict that drug companies will collaborate in financing independent research to more readily identify these oncogenes. Genomics has already led to successful (albeit temporary) treatment of secondary melanoma, one of the most aggressive cancers.

Personal genomics. What you learn from looking at your own genome isn’t worth today’s price (about $10,000). Either the price must come down or the value of the product must rise. Some companies offer to trace your ancestors back to their roots in northeast Africa and their wanderings over the past 150,000 years. Some offer to identify the breeds in your pet’s genealogy. Others identify genetic variations that may put you at risk for specific diseases. Of course chance is not certainty but even the chance of contracting dread diseases can still be upsetting.

Mass research. China is pursuing mass DNA banking that may allow pre-emptive treatment of tumors that are not yet malignant. The Chinese are also studying genetic underpinning of human intelligence with research on schoolchildren that might lead to some politically incorrect racial profiling.

Research elsewhere may produce a fine-grained picture of genetic differences in personality type, religiosity and even the ability to make money. Futurists foresee the creation of global DNA banks -- a genetic “Facebook” that could expose to public gaze one’s ancestry, susceptibility to disease, life expectancy, personality traits, intelligence, even criminal inclinations. That global DNA bank could yield a goldmine for medical research. And its discoveries could induce parents to clamor for genetically enhanced children – taller, smarter, more beautiful.

There will be mistakes along the way say the experts, and suffering perhaps. Information wants to be free, and technology once invented cannot be unlearned.

Muses futurist Stephen Brand:

“We are as gods, and might as well be good at it”.

A Family Lawsuit: Advance Damage Control

When litigation threatens, what can family members do to minimize its destructive power? Karen JacMar proposed a “manifesto” to limit the damage.* 

A lawsuit had not been filed but appeared inevitable. Disgruntled relatives had circulated an advance copy of a complaint against the top officers of JacMar Corporation, the family company. Named defendants were Jay JacMar, the founder’s son and CEO, and Jay’s sister, Karen, the company CFO. The draft complaint alleged that both had wrongfully abused their executive positions.

A mediator spoke to the assembled family and their counsel:

“Family lawsuits get out of hand in a hurry.


“Lawsuits rip and tear relationships built by generations of patient nurturing, then hand the shreds to future generations.


“If the JacMars are going to court, you need to contain the damage. You need to draw some boundaries that rampaging litigation can’t cross. So I have some homework for you. I want you to make some lists.


“First, list some family blessings about JacMar Corporation, who should be thanked for what and why.


“Second, list what you do and don’t want to happen during the lawsuit and why.


“Finally, list what should be done with your lists—who should see them and under what circumstances.

In response, Karen JacMar drafted this:

1.   Mom and Dad have left us with abundant opportunities and lifestyles we have not earned.

2.   We are the beneficiaries:

• of Dad’s energy, ambition, hard work and generosity,
• of Mom’s love, nurture and vigor,
• our brother Jay’s vision, intellect and quiet leadership,
• of our brother Frank’s warmth, wit and charm,
• of the courage, strength and compassion of Frank’s widow, Frances, and of her sons’ continuing dedication to our Company, and
• of our sister Karen’s versatility, loyalty and team play.

3.   JacMar Corporation is an important part of our family heritage. The Company has provided us with careers, prominence and personal wealth.

4.   Yet we differ on important issues involving Company management. We hope our differences will be settled through negotiation or mediation. If not, they will be resolved by court decision.

5.   Our differences are straining our relationships with each other and we anticipate further stress. We urgently desire to avoid unnecessary injury to our connectedness.

6.   Our remedies are limited to money damages. None of us subverts the importance of family to money demands. None of us will use litigation as an arena to expose rivalries, envies, injustices, hurts, slights or neglects.

7.   We wish to minimize publicity, sensationalism and erroneous reporting. None of us will communicate with the media about our differences or the litigation. We will instruct our lawyers to refrain from any public comment about our case. We will seek to have all records of this matter sealed from public inspection.

8.   A continuing healthy family relationship is our highest priority. We want to remain a strong family after this matter is concluded, regardless of its outcome.

9.   We are particularly concerned that our differences may adversely affect relationships between our children and grandchildren. We will do all we can to confine our disputes to our own generation.

10.   We urge our respective attorneys to be respectful and courteous to all family members at all stages of this matter. We ask them not to expose or exploit past disputes or differences between us that are not directly related to management of the Company. We ask all judges, magistrates and mediators to cooperate in our objective to protect our family relationship.

In an email transmitting the draft “manifesto” to the mediator Karen wrote:

“What do you think of sending the attached to the other side? Ask for their comments and suggestions?

“If they don’t buy in immediately, that’s OK. We can abide by it unilaterally can’t we?

“Maybe this will look better to them as the litigation progresses.

“Maybe it would interest the judge or jury.

“I guess the family could reconsider this even after final judgment.”

*Adapted from: Le Van, Families Money and Trouble (Xlibris 2003).]