Biglaw Firm Stereotypes (toronto)

[GGrievous]

I think that’s the problem though. People in a position of great power just doing what’s easy for a problem that’s anything but. I’d honestly rather the website just say “we don’t actually give a darn.” 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Barry

[ZukoJD]

58 minutes ago, sunshinecoast said:

 

There is also a considerable discrepancy in the number of black and Indigenous lawyers at the partnership level. It wasn't until 1961 that BC had its first Indigenous lawyer, Alfred Scow. That might not seem like a big deal to some, but it is. You will rarely find a senior partner at a law firm who is Indigenous. Even when firms recruit diverse students, it can be challenging for them to remain in a workplace where there is minimal mentorship from someone of the same or similar background. Usually, when I talk to people about this, they mention that black and Indigenous peoples only make up a small percent of the population in Canada. Sure, but the number of black and Indigenous lawyers practicing in Canada still does not come close to meeting those numbers. That could lead to a discussion on disenfranchisement and status, but I won't get into that. 

Indigenous peoples are definitely grossly underrepresented. I took a look at the numbers for black lawyers and while there is a disparity, it looks like it could be remedied pretty well in the coming years, assuming there's a solid conversion of black law students to lawyers. 

I just looked at Ontario because more than half the black population of Canada lives here, and 3.2% of the lawyers are black compared to 4.7% of the general population. Now that is a sizeable gap, but looking at the Black Law Student Census Report recently published where they highlight the percentage of black students in each faculty, we see the following percentages: 

TMU: 12.83% 

Osgoode: 8.1%

Windsor: 5.41% 

Uottawa: 4.82% 

U of T: 4.24% 

Western: 3.0% 

Queens: 2.8% 

Lakehead is an outlier with just .5%. 

If you take TMU to be an outlier as well as Lakehead, the black student population at Ontario law schools is about 4.7%, roughly mirroring the black population in Ontario. 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by ZukoJD

[Jaggers]

19 minutes ago, Barry said:

I think that’s the problem though. People in a position of great power just doing what’s easy for a problem that’s anything but. I’d honestly rather the website just say “we don’t actually give a darn.” 

Do you think what McCarthy's is doing was easy? To be the first big firm in the country to develop and implement a program like this? 

[GGrievous]

2 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

Do you think what McCarthy's is doing was easy? To be the first big firm in the country to develop and implement a program like this? 

I do think it was easy. Do you think it was hard? What do you think were the major challenges for them? I’m being completely genuine in asking that by the way. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

7 minutes ago, Barry said:

What do you think were the major challenges for them?

Reputational concerns and generating internal buy-in seem like the very obvious ones. 

[Jaggers]

Have you been following the Stop SOP issue? Even the most minor things can be very controversial in the legal profession, which is pretty reactionary. I imagine even getting this program approved by the partnership involved a lot of behind the scenes persuasion.

Then you have to deal with issues of which groups you will open the program up to, whether you will do any sort of verification of a candidate's self-identification, what will the interview process look like, do we need different structures from our normal summer program, etc. etc.  It is a much bigger deal than just opening up your hiring to a group of first year students.

[RuleOfBlah]

I would also like to point out that McCarthy in particular has done work on top of creating this program. They have been winning awards for their inclusion initiatives for a decade. Specifically for Indigenous peoples, they have a mentorship program, an Indigenous initiatives director, and they have done so much work to decolonize their workplace. I don't believe they would go to this great of an effort for mere "virtue signaling". 

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 minute ago, RuleOfBlah said:

I don't believe they would go to this great of an effort for mere "virtue signaling". 

Yeah, it’s obvious these firms aren’t doing this in order to “virtue signal”. They’re doing it because they think it will make them more money long term than hiring white dudes from UCC!

[chilly]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:28 AM, Turtles said:

McCarthys likes to ask very pointed questions during the recruit about how various diversity factors have affected you in your journey thus far and how you advance these interests for others. People who come into the recruit with robust rehearsed answers that can feed into a broader narrative are likely to do well, but I've heard a lot of disappointment from genuinely diverse candidates (including one refugee) who weren't expecting to be asked questions about their skin color or sexuality in a job interview and didn't have a prepared answer and didn't get called back. This kind of approach to hiring, regardless of how well-intended, can swing both ways and adversely affect those who it intends to help. 

This was my reaction exactly for a government interview since they're so structured and different from other recruit interviews. For private firms, it didn't feel surprising because firms like McCarthy had really emphasized EDI in promoting their firm and talking about culture.

Did it feel a bit weird to be asked questions like "What does diversity mean to you?" by middle-aged white men? Yes, but on balance it was a positive to see that firms cared (or at least made enough effort to seem like they care).

1 hour ago, Jaggers said:

I don't think anyone thinks McCarthys is going to "fix" the issue with a single summer program. It is a small shift that makes a small difference. I work at a place that probably has 50 times as many employees as McCarthys, and we do stuff in this area that also is not going to "fix" the problem.

Anyways, when you're working in this area, there are easy choices and there are really hard choices. Just doing something is one of the easy choices. What to do - how do you consider identity in hiring, which groups to focus on, what gatekeepers might you use, what happens next, how do you help people in the program succeed when they get in the door, etc. - presents much more difficult choices.

I think it's easy to forget that little things do add up and can make a big difference. That's not to say that only taking easier, smaller actions and nothing else won't backfire.

From a student perspective, "virtue signalling" backed up by demonstrable effort does have an impact on how firms are perceived. EDI was a significant factor in my (and other classmates') decision to apply certain firms or chose in-firms with some over others. Coming into law not knowing anything about the industry, firms stood out when they advertised having 1L positions for black and Indigenous students.

[KOMODO]

31 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

Have you been following the Stop SOP issue? Even the most minor things can be very controversial in the legal profession, which is pretty reactionary. I imagine even getting this program approved by the partnership involved a lot of behind the scenes persuasion.

Then you have to deal with issues of which groups you will open the program up to, whether you will do any sort of verification of a candidate's self-identification, what will the interview process look like, do we need different structures from our normal summer program, etc. etc.  It is a much bigger deal than just opening up your hiring to a group of first year students.

Even if it's hard to get a program like this off the ground though, that doesn't mean it's inherently good. Especially if @ZukoJD's numbers are right, and the racial makeup of black law students in Ontario matches the general population, why would we want law firm articling classes to significantly overrepresent black students? I would have thought our goal was to have firms that generally represent the population? @Jaggers, it seems pretty clear that you support this kind of program, but I'm struggling with why - do you feel that black students should be temporarily or permanently overrepresented in legal hiring, vs. their representation in the general population or law school? Nobody in this thread seems to want to directly say that what they're advocating for is overrepresentation of a certain group, but it's kind of implied in these comments. 

8 minutes ago, RuleOfBlah said:

I would also like to point out that McCarthy in particular has done work on top of creating this program. They have been winning awards for their inclusion initiatives for a decade. Specifically for Indigenous peoples, they have a mentorship program, an Indigenous initiatives director, and they have done so much work to decolonize their workplace. I don't believe they would go to this great of an effort for mere "virtue signaling". 

That's totally possible and it sounds like those other initiatives are great. But just because some initiatives are great doesn't mean we need to accept all of them as equally valuable, I think it's fair to ask what the specific goals are and think about whether these things help us achieve those goals. People seem quick to say that the program we're discussing is positive but aren't willing to actually discuss why they think that. 

[Mountebank]

If any candidates feel left out because they aren't either black or indigenous, can't they pretty easily solve this problem by checking the box anyway? This strategy appears to work quite well.

[BlockedQuebecois]

3 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

if @ZukoJD's numbers are right, and the racial makeup of black law students in Ontario matches the general population, why would we want law firm articling classes to significantly overrepresent black students? I would have thought our goal was to have firms that generally represent the population? @Jaggers, it seems pretty clear that you support this kind of program, but I'm struggling with why - do you feel that black students should be temporarily or permanently overrepresented in legal hiring, vs. their representation in the general population or law school? Nobody in this thread seems to want to directly say that what they're advocating for is overrepresentation of a certain group, but it's kind of implied in these comments. 

ZukoJD’s numbers might be right, but that doesn’t mean they’re helpful.

For example, they don’t wrestle with the fact that the black population is disproportionately young, such that young black folks are actually underrepresented in law schools, given law schools are similarly disproportionately young. 

They also don’t wrestle with the very obvious problem of representation in large firms, which is the problem the McCarthy’s program is trying to solve. Law schools could be 50% black and it still wouldn’t matter from the relevant perspective if law firm student classes still looked like bags of wonder bread. 

I also don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating for (or believes there should be) permanent overrepresentation of black folks in law firms. Although there are likely people who believe black folks (as well as other historically disadvantaged groups, including women) need to be overrepresent short-term in order to bring about long term racial equality. For example, if black students are 50% more likely to leave big law because they face racist barriers to continuing in the field, you may need to hire 50% more black students in order to ensure continued diversity in your associate and partner class going forwards.  

[KOMODO]

10 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

ZukoJD’s numbers might be right, but that doesn’t mean they’re helpful.

For example, they don’t wrestle with the fact that the black population is disproportionately young, such that young black folks are actually underrepresented in law schools, given law schools are similarly disproportionately young. 

They also don’t wrestle with the very obvious problem of representation in large firms, which is the problem the McCarthy’s program is trying to solve. Law schools could be 50% black and it still wouldn’t matter from the relevant perspective if law firm student classes still looked like bags of wonder bread. 

I also don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating for (or believes there should be) permanent overrepresentation of black folks in law firms. Although there are likely people who believe black folks (as well as other historically disadvantaged groups, including women) need to be overrepresent short-term in order to bring about long term racial equality. For example, if black students are 50% more likely to leave big law because they face racist barriers to continuing in the field, you may need to hire 50% more black students in order to ensure continued diversity in your associate and partner class going forwards.  

On your first two paragraphs, I can agree with that - I think it's important for law firm articling cohorts to roughly mirror the law school population, and I think it's important for the law school population to roughly mirror the general population. If there are significant discrepancies and/or we're looking at the wrong data, then I can get behind programs that seek to fix that imbalance at the relevant inflection points (though I would still suggest that the overall admission/hiring criteria should be adjusted until we get a balance, instead of artificially boosting a certain demographic and allowing whatever unfairness in the base process that is causing the imbalance to persist generally). 

I think I disagree with the last paragraph. If a disproportionate number of black lawyers are leaving private practice in the first few years, we need to fix something at the first few years level. Artificially inflating their numbers to cover the issue that's causing them to disproportionately leave seems problematic to me.

 

EDIT just for clarity on re-reading this - in the last sentence of my first paragraph, when I note that I could get behind programs that seek to fix the imbalance, I still don't mean the 1L McCarthys program. I still think it's the wrong way to go about this issue. I mean that I would support programs that assist underrepresented students in their applications or programs that seek to change the criteria for interviewing and hiring so that the successful candidate pool is representative.

Edited February 28, 2023 by KOMODO
Clarifying something

[BlockedQuebecois]

10 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

EDIT just for clarity on re-reading this - in the last sentence of my first paragraph, when I note that I could get behind programs that seek to fix the imbalance, I still don't mean the 1L McCarthys program. I still think it's the wrong way to go about this issue. I mean that I would support programs that assist underrepresented students in their applications or programs that seek to change the criteria for interviewing and hiring so that the successful candidate pool is representative.

I’m sure that if your firm designs a hiring process that fixes these issues more effectively than McCarthy’s program, other firms – including McCarthy’s – would adopt that hiring process. That would seem to be a more productive route to getting rid of programs you find problematic, rather than adopting a policy (i.e., the status quo) that leads to overrepresentation of white folks. 

[ZukoJD]

26 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

if law firm student classes still looked like bags of wonder bread. 

Which firms look like this? 

[KOMODO]

1 minute ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I’m sure that if your firm designs a hiring process that fixes these issues more effectively than McCarthy’s program, other firms – including McCarthy’s – would adopt that hiring process. That would seem to be a more productive route to getting rid of programs you find problematic, rather than adopting a policy (i.e., the status quo) that leads to overrepresentation of white folks. 

I think a number of firms are trying different approaches to fix the issue, and would like to think mine is one of them. I've mentioned a few of the alternate things firms are doing in this thread. Again though, it depends what you think the issue is - if my firm's articling class has a proportion of black and indigenous students that matches the proportion of black and indigenous students in law school, and we arrived there "naturally" (i.e., we didn't decide we needed X black students to hit a target or whatever, we just ended up hiring that number based on our base process), then I think the program has been successful in combatting the factors that disadvantage minority groups in law student hiring. It still may not be representative of the number of young black people in Toronto generally, but I would argue that's not the goal - that issue should be addressed at the law school admissions stage. I think people are still disagreeing on what the exact goal/issue is.

However, even if we're not 100% getting it "right" yet, I don't think that's a reason to adopt a program with its own (arguably more significant) issues. McCarthys clearly wants to be seen as doing something drastic, but even if the goal is totally noble, I think it's fair to question whether the program is better or worse than the alternatives (which to be clear, aren't limited to subjective evaluation dinners with exclusively white partners - there are other options that fall between "we're an old boys club" and "we only hire black students"). 

[BlockedQuebecois]

9 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

Which firms look like this?

Lol. If you read the rest of the sentence, you’ll see that entire sentence is an exaggerated hypothetical. I assume you were too busy rushing to try to imply systemic racism is not a problem in law firm hiring to do that, though. 

[ZukoJD]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Lol. If you read the rest of the sentence, you’ll see that entire sentence is an exaggerated hypothetical. I assume you were too busy rushing to try to imply systemic racism is not a problem in law firm hiring to do that, though. 

And look at you! Rushing to put words in my mouth 🙂 

[Jaggers]

4 hours ago, KOMODO said:

 @Jaggers, it seems pretty clear that you support this kind of program, but I'm struggling with why - do you feel that black students should be temporarily or permanently overrepresented in legal hiring, vs. their representation in the general population or law school? Nobody in this thread seems to want to directly say that what they're advocating for is overrepresentation of a certain group, but it's kind of implied in these comments. 

I do support this kind of program. Luckily I work in a job where we can try different things, study them, see what works and doesn't, support people coming in under different programs, track their careers, etc. etc.

We have had a lot of discussion about whether to hire people who identify with specific communities, or hire people who have connections with those communities (a fine difference, but one that matters). We've had a lot of discussion about whether we need any gatekeeping when somebody checks the box. We've had a lot of discussion about how to support people coming in under these programs so candidates don't feel like they were hired to check a box. We've had a lot of discussion about how to involve internal people who identify with various communities to provide support, without making them feel like we're just asking them to check a box.

None of it is easy - it's not like you can just say "we'll hire X number of black and indigenous people, and then our work is done". I don't think McCarthys is doing that either.

[Jaggers]

And when you talk about "overrepresentation", is it relevant to talk about it within one specific small group of first year hires? What is the group that is relevant? We hire almost 10,000 people a year with turnover, so is it relevant to think about whether 30 of those 10,000 are part of a targeted program?

McCarthys has something like 700 lawyers across the country, so is it relevant to think about an annual first year hire of 5-10 students?

[KOMODO]

2 hours ago, Jaggers said:

I do support this kind of program. Luckily I work in a job where we can try different things, study them, see what works and doesn't, support people coming in under different programs, track their careers, etc. etc.

We have had a lot of discussion about whether to hire people who identify with specific communities, or hire people who have connections with those communities (a fine difference, but one that matters). We've had a lot of discussion about whether we need any gatekeeping when somebody checks the box. We've had a lot of discussion about how to support people coming in under these programs so candidates don't feel like they were hired to check a box. We've had a lot of discussion about how to involve internal people who identify with various communities to provide support, without making them feel like we're just asking them to check a box.

None of it is easy - it's not like you can just say "we'll hire X number of black and indigenous people, and then our work is done". I don't think McCarthys is doing that either.

Jaggers, I really respect you and your opinion carries more weight for me than someone random. But if someone random did say this, I would feel like they were skirting the actual discussion. You're basically saying you've studied affirmative action in your workplace and decided it's valuable, without giving any reasons for why you think it's a better way of doing things than the alternative, and without responding to any of the issues or potential issues raised upthread. Now in all fairness, I assume that's because you can't get into more detail, either because it's too time consuming/complicated or too revealing/confidential, but it's hard to be convinced of the merit when your argument in favour of the program is, "we've discussed it and decided we like it". 

2 hours ago, Jaggers said:

And when you talk about "overrepresentation", is it relevant to talk about it within one specific small group of first year hires? What is the group that is relevant? We hire almost 10,000 people a year with turnover, so is it relevant to think about whether 30 of those 10,000 are part of a targeted program?

McCarthys has something like 700 lawyers across the country, so is it relevant to think about an annual first year hire of 5-10 students?

Yeah, I absolutely think it's relevant. Every law firm on Bay Street is grappling with how to correct the underrepresentation of visible minorities at various stages of their legal careers, and the whole point of this discussion is that we're trying to understand the best way to achieve that. Various people in this thread (including yourself, I take it) are arguing that McT's program for hiring exclusively black and indigenous 1L candidates is better than the other EDI-informed student hiring strategies we currently have (though we all agree that no single program will be enough to completely fix the system issue of racial bias in the legal industry).

If this program truly was the best way to address the issue, we would want all firms to adopt the model. But they obviously can't, because it falls apart with wide adoption - surely many more people would see a problem with the idea that only black and indigenous 1L students could work on Bay Street at all, at any firm. To me, the fact that widespread adoption of this strategy would lead to absurdity is evidence that it isn't the best way to proceed. Now perhaps those posters would respond that if all firms were prepared to participate, they could set a quota for black and indigenous students, requiring law firms to hire some set percentage of visible minority students (as in, just adopt literal old school US-style affirmative action). I would be concerned about that for all of the same reasons I listed several posts ago.

A few other anticipatory responses. Some posters may say that just because they like and believe in McT's program, that doesn't mean they think it's better than other currently available alternatives. If so, then why support it? It is only able to exist at McT at the expense of the other currently available alternatives. Likewise, some posters may say that although they think McT's program has merit, they don't believe it should be widely adopted. If so, why on earth not? If you really believe this is the best way to do things, why would you want that strategy to be limited to a single firm?

[xdarkwhite]

On the topic of virtue signaling... "I'm all for more diversity and inclusion, of course, but so long as it's not the absolute objectively best way, then I'm against firms implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives." I don't understand why the standard by which we measure the status quo is "it's flawed, but it is what it is" but the standard to measure diversity and inclusion programs are "it needs to be the best or else we shouldn't have them at all." 

Do you remember what McCarthys' alternative was? It was nothing. McCarthys never had a 1L summer program, as is the case with most Bay Street firms. A firm of 300+ partners, 400+ associates, and 2L summer classes of ~35 students decides to add to (and not take-away from) their hiring on a handful of underrepresented folks for a 1L class, but it's not the "best" way of doing things, held against some hypothetical standard that hasn't really been articulated yet, so it should be scrapped. Let's throw in a slippery slope in there too — "Can you imagine how absurd it would be if every single firm in Toronto hired only black and indigenous students for their 1L class?"

I also take issue with this whole "meritocracy" thing, as if there's some objective measure of meritocracy that can be determined in 2L when students are going through recruiting and that we'd be losing out if we didn't select the most meritorious person. As if these recruiters and lawyers can sniff that out, which just so happens to be a bunch of similar-looking dudes from UCC. I'm not disputing that there are some people who are smarter and harder working than others, nor am I saying that there aren't objective measures we can use (however flawed they may be), but our legal recruiting system, where everything is based off of a 17-minute "fit" interview and not on technical knowledge or skill, might not be the most zeroed rifle here. 

And on the interview point, from what I remember, McCarthys was actually one of the first Bay Street firms to adopt standardized behavioural questions that they ask to all candidates (at least at the OCI stage). I interviewed with them several years ago and, as an anecdotal reference, was asked two diversity and inclusion questions at different stages of the process: (1) Can you tell me about a time where you worked on a diverse team, and (2) what does working in a diverse and inclusive profession mean to you. If you can't coherently answer those questions, it might not be the diversity/inclusion thing per se that's holding back your callback.

[KOMODO]

6 hours ago, xdarkwhite said:

On the topic of virtue signaling... "I'm all for more diversity and inclusion, of course, but so long as it's not the absolute objectively best way, then I'm against firms implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives." I don't understand why the standard by which we measure the status quo is "it's flawed, but it is what it is" but the standard to measure diversity and inclusion programs are "it needs to be the best or else we shouldn't have them at all." 

Do you remember what McCarthys' alternative was? It was nothing. McCarthys never had a 1L summer program, as is the case with most Bay Street firms. A firm of 300+ partners, 400+ associates, and 2L summer classes of ~35 students decides to add to (and not take-away from) their hiring on a handful of underrepresented folks for a 1L class, but it's not the "best" way of doing things, held against some hypothetical standard that hasn't really been articulated yet, so it should be scrapped. Let's throw in a slippery slope in there too — "Can you imagine how absurd it would be if every single firm in Toronto hired only black and indigenous students for their 1L class?"

I also take issue with this whole "meritocracy" thing, as if there's some objective measure of meritocracy that can be determined in 2L when students are going through recruiting and that we'd be losing out if we didn't select the most meritorious person. As if these recruiters and lawyers can sniff that out, which just so happens to be a bunch of similar-looking dudes from UCC. I'm not disputing that there are some people who are smarter and harder working than others, nor am I saying that there aren't objective measures we can use (however flawed they may be), but our legal recruiting system, where everything is based off of a 17-minute "fit" interview and not on technical knowledge or skill, might not be the most zeroed rifle here. 

And on the interview point, from what I remember, McCarthys was actually one of the first Bay Street firms to adopt standardized behavioural questions that they ask to all candidates (at least at the OCI stage). I interviewed with them several years ago and, as an anecdotal reference, was asked two diversity and inclusion questions at different stages of the process: (1) Can you tell me about a time where you worked on a diverse team, and (2) what does working in a diverse and inclusive profession mean to you. If you can't coherently answer those questions, it might not be the diversity/inclusion thing per se that's holding back your callback.

Assuming this is directed at me, you're either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what I've been saying. Maybe you should go back and read my posts more carefully. I've directly addressed most of the things you're saying, and not in the way you seem to think.

[BlockedQuebecois]

While I agree that @xdarkwhite’s post does not fully represent your argument, @KOMODO, I think what they are reacting to is that your view is implicitly that we should prefer policies that result in the overrepresentation of historically advantaged groups over policies that result in the overrepresentation of historically marginalized groups, until we find the policy or policies that result in perfect representation. In contrast, others in this thread are comfortable implementing policies that might result in overrepresentation of marginalized groups until we find the policy or policies that result in perfect representation. 

You are obviously entitled to have that opinion, but, speaking solely for myself, I do find it off putting that you have thrown shade at people for not explaining their positions while you have not held yourself to the same standard. If your expectation of others is that they will “directly say that what they're advocating for is overrepresentation of a certain group”, you should be willing to directly say that what you’re advocating for is the continued overrepresentation of white folks (and in particular, white men) in bay street firms, at least temporarily.

Edited March 1, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Jaggers]

14 hours ago, KOMODO said:

Jaggers, I really respect you and your opinion carries more weight for me than someone random. But if someone random did say this, I would feel like they were skirting the actual discussion. You're basically saying you've studied affirmative action in your workplace and decided it's valuable, without giving any reasons for why you think it's a better way of doing things than the alternative, and without responding to any of the issues or potential issues raised upthread. Now in all fairness, I assume that's because you can't get into more detail, either because it's too time consuming/complicated or too revealing/confidential, but it's hard to be convinced of the merit when your argument in favour of the program is, "we've discussed it and decided we like it". 

The company I work at is actually obligated by law in some jurisdictions and business units to put in place policies and practices that will result in certain groups being represented in our employee population equal to their representation in the available labour force. 

That said, we do these things in jurisdictions and business units where we don't have to either. The reality is that our top leaders, based on a fair amount of evidence and experience, believe that having a more diverse workforce is better for teamwork and innovation, better for serving members of the public from those communities, better for ongoing recruitment and talent retention, and other benefits. We do internship programs for targeted groups. We make sure every slate of candidates for an executive position contains candidates with various backgrounds. We do early talent identification and mentoring for people from certain communities. We build links with community groups so that when we have positions available we can get resumes in the door from those communities. We do internal resource groups so people can connect with others and discuss career challenges and opportunities.

I am in favour of any Bay St firm doing any one of those, or two of them, or all of them. Or any other ideas they have.

Anyways, I'm heading off on vacation, so probably won't have much more substantive contribution to this, though I may check in from the poolside at some point.