|
|
Enron Mail |
Peter:
As we have discussed, I think we probably need someone other than Dan. I don't think there is any need to lay everything out on use of lawyers in Canada. I agree with your comments on the business model for lawyers. We can't ignore that. Let's generally talk that through with Jim. Regards, Mark Peter Keohane 03/07/2001 08:46 AM To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Canadian Counsel Mark, a few thoughts: 1. Dan Fournier asked me to go to lunch so he could update me on his "very positive meeting" with Jim and you. I told Dan, politely, that I am very tired of talking to the issue and really have nothing more to add. I hope that is OK with you. To be honest, I am really tired of talking to the issue and dealing with Dan Fournier's political maneuvering, but I am also concerned that it seems apparent that the result of his meeting with you and Jim is that he thinks he is back in the saddle with Enron. I have lost trust and confidence in Dan Fournier and as I mentioned Dan's approach within Blakes becomes exclusive and results in inefficient allocation of Blakes resources to our files. He tries to conquer the client and thereby alienates the talent within his firm. I know for a fact, after he has squeezed others out on our work and his mismanagement of this issue with Enron, that if Dan is back in the saddle, many of his partners will not been keen on doing our work under Dan's terms. I also know that there is a philosophy in Houston to commercial people not having say in legal retainers, but I believe that the senior commercial people who are responsible for the transactions, particularly in a smaller office in a smaller market, have an important place in the relationship, and in that regard, I know Fournier has lost the trust and confidence of Rob Milnthorp. 2. Regarding Donahue Ernst and Young, it should be borne in mind that the initial contact to doing work at their firm was through Jordan Mintz and Morris Clark on the tax side. I also know Jordan thinks well not just of their firm but of the multidisciplinary business model. I also think that Jim needs to understand that the business model is likely not going away, and likely to expand in Canada, the US and Europe and is something we likely cannot ignore. Also, the circumstances you will recall for us using DEY initially was on regulatory and contracting issues affecting the retail market, where the incumbent firms with any experience in the area were all conflicted and in an area where Blakes is particularly weak in Calgary. (We first approached Stikemans, which had conflict with Enmax, and Bennett Jones, which had a conflict with ATCO. Other firms which we do not typically use but which had experience also had conflicts. After that, I solicited written propsals from both Blakes and DEY and interviewed with them with the retail team.) Frankly, DEY has done good work for us. E&Y is also very well situated on the market development side in Ontario, a leading proponent of deregulation of the Ontario market, and worked with us to set up our systems in Toronto for market opening. 3. Should I e-mail to Jim a proposed agenda for our call on the 20th outlining the firms we currently use in different capacities in Canada? Blakes, Bennett Jones, Stikemans, Oslers, Donahue E&Y, or is a less structurd call anticipated? Peter. Peter.
|