Category: Book Reviews

1

Barbara Babcock reviews new book on Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Professor Barbara Babcock

Professor Barbara Babcock

Over at SCOTUSblog, Standford Law Professor Emerita Barbara Babcock has a book review of Scott Dodson’s new The Legacy of Ruth Bader GinsburgCambridge University Press, 2015 (336 pp., cloth, $29.99), which he edited.

Babcock’s review is titled “Law Professor, Feminist, and Jurist” and draws on some of her own history with RBG.

As you may recall, in an earlier post on this blog Danielle Citron also wrote about Justice Ginsburg and the collection of essays in the Dodson volume.

In case you missed it, take a look at Gail Collins’ recent column in the New York Times titled “The Unsinkable R.B.G.”

(In the interest of full disclosure, I also serve as the book editor for SCOTUSblog.)

0

The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Edited by esteemed civil procedure scholar Scott Dodson, the newly released book “The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg” is a significant contribution. The release is beautifully timed: the public is rightfully taken with Justice Ginsburg’s insights. Hopefully, I will have Professor Dodson back to the blog to talk about the book in detail but for now here is a description.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a legal icon. In more than fifty years as a lawyer, professor, appellate judge, and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ginsburg has influenced the law and society in real and permanent ways. Her impact on the law cannot be overstated. Yet no book on Ginsburg’s legacy exists. This book fills that gaping void by chronicling and evaluating the remarkable achievements Ginsburg has made over the past half century. Including chapters written by prominent court watchers and leading scholars from law, political science, and history, it offers diverse perspectives on an array of doctrinal areas and on different time periods in Ginsburg’s career. Together, these perspectives document the impressive – and continuing – legacy of one of the most important figures in modern law.

The book’s contributors include Nina Totenberg of NPR fame, Chief Judge Robert Katzmann (Second Circuit), Reva Siegel (Yale) and Neil Siegel (Duke), Lani Guinier (Harvard), Herma Hill Kay (Berkeley), Dahlia Lithwick (Slate), Aziz Huq (Chicago), Cary Franklin (Texas), and Tom Goldstein (SCOTUSblog), among others. Jacket reviews are by Trevor Morrison (NYU) and Ginsburg’s two biographers, Wendy Williams (Georgetown) and Jane De Hart (UCSB). Readers can download a free e-copy of the Preface, Table of Contents, and Coda from SSRN.

The book’s already gotten some good press. My co-blogger and First Amendment guru Ron Collins has a write up of the book on SCOTUSblog (along with some other recommended books). Civil rights scholar Nancy Leong of Denver University School of Law has a podcast interview of Scott Dodson on the book for her inaugural episode of RightsCast. Above the Law’s David Lat has been Tweeting about it. And Justice Ginsburg herself mentioned it to a huge crowd at the AALS Conference earlier this month and said that she would make sure it was available for purchase in the Supreme Court gift shop.

The Washington Independent Review of Books Annual Conference
The Washington Independent Review of Books Annual Conference
5

OUP’s Niko Pfund to Speak @ Washington Independent Review of Books’ Annual Book Festival in April

Niko Pfund

Niko Pfund

Niko Pfund is the President of Oxford University Press. If truth is a defense, it is fair to describe him as savvy, knowledgeable, creative, open-minded, and entirely likable . . . and he knows a lot about the book business, too. So it was quite a coup when the Washington Independent Review of Books got Pfund to speak at its annual book festival. (Full disclosure: I’m on the board of directors and have published a book with OUP.)

The Conference takes place on Saturday, April 25, 2015, at the Bethesda Marriott at Pook’s Hill in Bethesda, Maryland. It offers a full day of conversations and panels with professional writers, agents, and publishers, along with an opportunity for aspiring authors to present their projects to an agent during face-to-face, one-on-one pitch sessions.

Mr. Pfund will participate in a panel discussion entitled: “What Do Publishers Want?” The discussion will be moderated by Salley Shannon and will also feature Peter Osnos and Gregg Wilhelm.

→ Some 25 literary agents will be participating in the conference (see list here).

The schedule of events for the conference can be found here (click here to register for the conference).

Some of Oxford’s more recent law-related books include:

7

Unto the Breach: An interview with the all too candid Dean Erwin Chemerinsky

We should realize that this is an emperor that truly has no clothes. For too long, we have treated the Court is if they are the high priests of the law, or at least as if they are the smartest and best lawyers in society. Erwin Chemerinsky (2014)

I am very pleased to interview Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in connection with his eighth book, The Case Against the Supreme Court (Viking, 2014) – this in addition to the 200-plus scholarly articles he has published. One of those articles was the foreword to the Harvard Law Review’s 1988 Supreme Court Term issue. His first scholarly article was published 36 years ago, this when he was associated with the D.C. firm of Dobrovir, Oakes, & Gebhardt. Today, Chemerinsky’s casebook, Constitutional Law, is one of the most widely read law textbooks in the country.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky

Unlike most academics, he also has a practitioner’s flare for the law, having argued five cases in the Supreme Court, among other courts. Last year, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential persons in legal education while the Anti Defamation League honored him for his commitment and contributions to freedom and education. And in 2007, Douglas Kmiec labeled him as “one of the finest constitutional scholars in the country.”

True to his reputation, Dean Chemerinsky’s new book invites us to think – and think hard – about some of our gospel “givens” about the Court, its members, its procedures, and its future.

Thank you Dean Chemerinsky for taking the time to answer my questions, and congratulations on the publication of your latest book.

* * * *

Question: For someone who argues cases before the Supreme Court and who writes on and teaches about the Court, yours is a rather provocative title. Why did you choose it?

Chemerinsky: The title captures the thesis of the book. As I reflect on it, I realize that the Supreme Court has often failed, often at the most important times and at its most important tasks. I think that this is a conclusion that both conservatives and liberals can agree to and need to realize. The Supreme Court’s decisions on race, its rulings in times of crisis, its decisions during the Lochner era are powerful examples where I think liberals and conservatives would agree that the Court did great harm to society. That is the foundation of the case against the Supreme Court. I want to see the Court made better and the impetus for thus must be recognizing that there is a need for reform.

Go here for Dean Chemerinsky’s oral argument in the Supreme Court in Tory v. Cochran (2005).

Question: You write: “I discovered in my own mind I have been making excuses for the Court. The Supreme Court is not the institution that I once revered.” What brought about this change of heart for you?

Carrie Buck

Carrie Buck

Chemerinsky: One semester I was teaching Buck v. Bell (1927), the Supreme Court decision that upheld Virginia’s eugenics law and where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously declared “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” After class, I realized that I had been making excuses for the Court in class. I did some research and realized that 60,000 people were involuntarily surgically sterilized as a result of the Court’s decision and the eugenics movement. As I thought about it, I realized that I often was making excuses for the Court in my teaching and writing.

Question: Like many others (both conservative and liberal), you fault Justice Holmes for his “offensive and insensitive” opinion in Buck v. Bell. Fair enough. What is often overlooked, however, is that Justice Louis Brandeis (one of the most humane defenders of civil rights and liberties) joined that opinion. Why? Does that give you any reflective pause? How do you explain that?

Chemerinsky: As always, the explanation must be complex rather than simple. It was at a time when progressives were defining themselves, in part, by urging deference to government as a way of criticizing the Lochner era decisions. It was at a time when the eugenics movement had great support in society. It was at a time when the Court had begun to protect non-textual rights concerning autonomy (e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)), but had not gone far in this direction.

Does this give me reflective pause? Buck v. Bell was tragically wrong when it was decided and it is inexcusable that the Court allowed states to surgically sterilize people who had done nothing wrong.

[Re Brandeis: For a critical take on his civil rights/civil liberties record, consider David Bernstein, “From Progressivism to Modern Liberalism: Louis D. Brandeis as a Transitional Figure in Constitutional Law,” Notre Dame Law Review (2014)]

Question: You maintain “the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is not fragile.” That cuts against the conventional wisdom, certainly the prudential wisdom. Please explain to us why you think this so.

UnknownChemerinsky: The Court’s legitimacy is the product of all that it has done over 200 years.   Over this time, it has firmly established its role.  I agree with what John Hart Ely wrote in Democracy and Distrust (1980) that the Court’s legitimacy is robust. Some such as Felix Frankfurter and Alexander Bickel argued that the Court must be restrained to preserve its fragile legitimacy. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) shows the fallacy of that position. Nothing the Court has done has been more controversial or done more to enhance its institutional legitimacy. There are virtually no instances in American history of people disobeying the Court and those that occurred, such as in defiance of desegregation orders, only enhanced the Court’s legitimacy.

No single decision (or group of decisions) will seriously affect the Court’s legitimacy. I remember after Bush v. Gore hearing people say that the decision would damage the Court’s legitimacy. I was skeptical of such claims and I was right. The Court’s approval rating was the same in June 2001, six months after the decision, as it had been in September 2000, three months before the ruling. It had gone down among Democrats and up among Republicans. It is why I strongly disagree with those who believe that Chief Justice John Roberts changed his vote to uphold the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act case so as to preserve the Court’s credibility. He knew that whatever the Court did would please about half the country and disappoint about half the country.

Go here for a 2014 video interview with Dean Chemerinsky discussing his new book.

Question: You are critical of the Court’s unanimous ruling in Hui v. Castaneda (2010). There the Court, per Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that public health service officers and employees could not be sued for Bivens actions for violating citizens’ constitutional rights if the violation was committed in the course of their government duties. The plaintiff can only sue the federal government, not the employees. There were no separate opinions in the case. Given the vote, how do you explain your claim that the Court got it wrong? Bias? Poorly argued? The law clerks’ fault? Or what?

Francisco Castaneda testifying before Congress

Francisco Castaneda testifying before Congress, 2007

Chemerinsky: In Hui v. Castañeda, a prisoner had a lesion on his penis. Francisco Castañeda was suffering enormously and the symptoms got worse and worse. But still the public health service workers refused to let him see a doctor. By the time they let him see a doctor the cancer had spread all over his body. His penis was amputated, but he died a short time later. It was egregious deliberate indifference. But the Court unanimously ruled that the existence of a statute protecting public health workers from suit barred a constitutional claim. This seems wrong: a statute should not bar a constitutional claim.

Why did the Court come to this conclusion? I think this case reflects a much larger trend of the Supreme Court favoring the immunity of government and government officers over remedies for injured individuals. It is reflected in the expansion of sovereign immunity, the growth of absolute and qualified immunity, and the evisceration of Bivens suits.

Go here to read Francisco Castañeda’s testimony before Congress, Oct. 4, 2007; see also Gabriel Eber, “Remembering Francisco Castañeda,” ACLU website, May 5, 2010

Question: You write of the need for scholars to look “cumulatively at the Court’s decisions” re race, civil liberties, economic regulations, school desegregation, effective counsel, labor law, consumer protection, and governmental immunity. Is it really possible to look at the Court through such a broad lens? And if so, what might it tell us that we already do not know?

Chemerinsky: My concern is that the narrower the focus, the easier it is to make excuses for the Court. Any institution will make decisions that we later regard as mistakes. Virtually everyone today believes that Dred Scott (1856) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Korematsu v. United States (1944) were tragically wrong. But focusing on each creates the view that they are isolated errors. If they are seen as part of a larger pattern, it becomes clearer that there is a strong case against the Supreme Court. It then becomes clear that there is a need for reforms.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the docket for October Term 2014 is now complete, and it has the potential to be one of the most momentous in history. – Erwin Chemerinsky (Jan. 27, 2015)

Question: You find merit in Texas Governor Rick Perry’s idea for a proposed constitutional amendment limiting each Justice to an 18-year term. Think of it, had such a rule been in place, Holmes could not have written his is dissent in Gitlow v. New York (1925), Brennan would not have authored his majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989), and we would never have read Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). Two questions: (1) Does that concern you? And (2) Isn’t it always an iffy matter to push for constitutional amendments concerning the Court? Read More

The Second Machine Age & the System of Professions

Why do we have professions? Many economists give a public choice story: guilds of doctors, social workers, etc., monopolize a field by bribing legislators to keep everyone else out of the guild.* Some scholars of legal ethics buy into that story for our field, too.

But there is another, older explanation, based on the need for independent judgment and professional autonomy. Who knows whether a doctor employed by a drug company could resist the firm’s requirement that she prescribe its products off-label as often as possible. With independent doctors, there is at least some chance of pushback. Similarly, I’d be much more confident in the conclusions of a letter written by attorneys assessing the legality of a client’s course of action if that client generated, say, 1%, rather than 100%, of their business.

Andrew Abbott’s book The System of Professions makes those, and many other, critical points about the development of professions. Genuine expertise and independent judgment depend on certain economic arrangements. For Abbott, the professions exist, in part, to shield certain groups from the full force of economic demands that can be made by those with the most money or power. As inequality in the developed world skyrockets, and the superrich at the very top of the economy accumulate vastly more wealth than the vast majority of even the best-paid professionals, such protections become even more urgent.

I was reminded of Abbott’s views while reading Lilly Irani’s excellent review of Erik Brynjolffson & Andrew McAfee’s The Second Machine Age, and Simon Head’s Mindless. Irani, a former Googler, digs into the real conditions of work at leading firms of the digital economy. She observes that much of what we might consider “making” (pursuant to some professional standards) is a form of “managing:”
Read More

4

Cognitive Biases, the Legal Academy, and the Judiciary

It’s a pleasure to be here at Concurring Opinions.  I would like to thank Dan, Sarah, and Ron for inviting me.  During my visit, I hope to talk a bit about my core research areas of land use and local government law (including why you, who are statistically unlikely to be interested in either land use or local government law, should be interested), but also about other issues such as the current state of the legal academy and the legal profession, often using land use or local government law to examine these broader issues.

On Cognitive Biases

On that last note, Slate.com recently ran a great piece by Katy Waldman regarding how the human brain processes information, observing that people have a predilection to believe factual claims that we find easy to process.  Waldman synthesizes the results of several interesting studies, including one eye-opening study that identifies three persistent cognitive biases that humans possess.  As Waldman summarizes these biases: “First, we reflexively attribute people’s behavior to their character rather than their circumstances.” Second, “we learn more easily when knowledge is arranged hierarchically, so in a pinch we may be inclined to accept fixed status and gender roles.” And third, “we tend to assume that persisting and long-standing states are good and desirable, which stirs our faith in the status quo absent any kind of deep reflection.” The studygreen-lizard-1427838-s attributes these biases to the basic human need, rooted in the primitive recesses of our lizard brain (pictured), to manage uncertainty and risk.

While Waldman argues that there is some relationship between these biases and conservative political beliefs, what struck me about these findings is how well the biases describe judicial behavior.

Read More

0

Chapter 8 of Berkshire Beyond Buffett: An Excerpt and Link

untitledThe following is an excerpt from Chapter 8, Autonomy, from Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values; the full text of the chapter, which considers the case for Berkshire’s distinctive trust-based model of corporate governance, can be downloaded free from SSRN here.

. . . Berkshire corporate policy strikes a balance between autonomy and authority. Buffett issues written instructions every two years that reflect the balance. The missive states the mandates Berkshire places on subsidiary CEOs: (1) guard Berkshire’s reputation; (2) report bad news early; (3) confer about post-retirement benefit changes and large capital expenditures (including acquisitions, which are encouraged); (4) adopt a fifty-year time horizon; (5) refer any opportunities for a Berkshire acquisition to Omaha; and (6) submit written successor recommendations. Otherwise, Berkshire stresses that managers were chosen because of their excellence and are urged to act on that excellence.   

Berkshire defers as much as possible to subsidiary chief executives on operational matters with scarcely any central supervision. All quotidian decisions would qualify: GEICO’s advertising budget and underwriting standards; loan terms at Clayton Homes and environmental quality of Benjamin Moore paints; the product mix and pricing at Johns Manville, the furniture stores and jewelry shops. The same applies to decisions about hiring, merchandising, inventory, and receivables management, whether Acme Brick, Garan, or The Pampered Chef. Berkshire’s deference extends to subsidiary decisions on succession to senior positions, including chief executive officer, as seen in such cases as Dairy Queen and Justin Brands.

Munger has said Berkshire’s oversight is just short of abdication. In a wild example, Lou Vincenti, the chief executive at Berkshire’s Wesco Financial subsidiary since its acquisition in 1973, ran the company for several years while suffering from Alzheimer’s disease—without Buffett or Munger aware of the condition. “We loved him so much,” Munger said, “that even after we found out, we kept him in his job until the week that he went off to the Alzheimer’s home. He liked coming in, and he wasn’t doing us any harm.” The two lightened a grim situation, quipping that they wished to have more subsidiaries so earnest and reputable that they could be managed by people with such debilitating medical conditions.   

There are obvious exceptions to Berkshire’s tenet of autonomy. Large capital expenditures—or the chance of that—lead reinsurance executives to run outsize policies and risks by headquarters. Berkshire intervenes in extraordinary circumstances, for example, the costly deterioration in underwriting standards at Gen Re and threatened repudiation of a Berkshire commitment to distributors at Benjamin Moore. Mandatory or not, Berkshire was involved in R. C. Willey’s expansion outside of Utah and rightly asserts itself in costly capital allocation decisions like those concerning purchasing aviation simulators at FlightSafety or increasing the size of the core fleet at NetJets.

 Ironically, gains from Berkshire’s hands-off management are highlighted by an occasion when Buffett made an exception. Buffett persuaded GEICO managers to launch a credit card business for its policyholders. Buffett hatched the idea after puzzling for years to imagine an additional product to offer its millions of loyal car insurance customers. GEICO’s management warned Buffett against the move, expressing concern that the likely result would be to get a high volume of business from its least creditworthy customers and little from its most reliable ones. By 2009, GEICO had lost more than $6 million in the credit card business and took another $44 million hit when it sold the portfolio of receivables at a discount to face value. The costly venture would not have been pursued had Berkshire stuck to its autonomy principle.

The more important—and more difficult—question is the price of autonomy.  Buffett has explained Berkshire’s preference for autonomy and assessment of the related costs: 

We tend to let our many subsidiaries operate on their own, without our supervising and monitoring them to any degree. That means we are sometimes late in spotting management problems and that [disagreeable] operating and capital decisions are occasionally made. . . . Most of our managers, however, use the independence we grant them magnificently, rewarding our confidence by maintaining an owner-oriented attitude that is invaluable and too seldom found in huge organizations. We would rather suffer the visible costs of a few bad decisions than incur the many invisible costs that come from decisions made too slowly—or not at all—because of a stifling bureaucracy.

Berkshire’s approach is so unusual that the occasional crises that result provoke public debate about which is better in corporate culture: Berkshire’s model of autonomy-and-trust or the more common approach of command-and-control. Few episodes have been more wrenching and instructive for Berkshire culture than when David L. Sokol, an esteemed senior executive with his hand in many Berkshire subsidiaries, was suspected of insider trading in an acquisition candidate’s stock. . . .

[To read the full chapter, which can be downloaded for free, click here and hit download]

0

U Delaware Chaplin Tyler Lecture

I’m honored to be giving this lecture at my alma mater, and thanks go to Charles Elson for the opportunity and Kim Ragan for organizing the event.  It’s the first in the book tour that will take me to many other great universities with thanks to many more wonderful colleagues nationwide.  More details as they are finalized.

Poster U Delaware-page1

2

BOOK REVIEW: Linder & Levit, The Good Lawyer: Seeking Quality in the Practice of Law

happylawyer-levitReview of The Good Lawyer: Seeking Quality in the Practice of Law by Douglas O. Linder & Nancy Levit (Oxford University Press 2014)

Linder and Levit have – yet again – confronted some of the most challenging questions faced by lawyers who seek to find satisfaction in our careers. The Good Lawyer: Seeking Quality in the Practice of Law builds on the authors’ first book, The Happy Lawyer: Making a Good Life in the Law. One of the central questions posed in the first book—how do you become a happy lawyer—seems to be answered in part by the second book. Linder and Levit draw on numerous different disciplines that show a strong link between doing good work and being happy, between personal lives and professional roles.

The Good Lawyer emphasizes a set of qualities, skills, and attitudes shared by people the authors identify as “good lawyers.” As they note, lawyers who practice in different fields – intellectual property, securities fraud, employment discrimination – may need to develop distinct, and particularized, skills, but, regardless of their practice area, lawyers are proudest of themselves when they do meaningful work for clients about whom they care. Consequently, all lawyers, whether they work for private firms, the government, or in a public interest setting or as solo practitioners, can appreciate and use the particular attributes that Linder and Levit identify. Those attributes are addressed in nine of the book’s ten chapters, and they range from empathy to moral courage, cognitive skills, willpower, civility, honesty, and open-mindedness. As they explore the good lawyers’ attributes, the authors draw on behavioral economics, Tonglen Buddhism, cognitive psychology, and the law to support and explain their points.

While the book has some endnotes (under 30 pages, actually), it also has humor and even a checklist, although the checklist is primarily enumerated suggestions rather than a protocol. And it has lots of stories, which make the book even more of a joy to read. The stories provide context and drama. Linder and Levit visit courageous lawyers in the Jim Crow South, explore the psychodrama exercises Gerry Spence offers to trial lawyers at Thunderhead Ranch in Wyoming, introduce Lex Machina, a Stanford project to create a database that helps lawyers predict winning strategies, and probe the expert testimony in the trial of Sam Sheppard.

Read More

0

New Book: Berkshire Beyond Buffett

As people speculate about what will happen to Berkshire Hathaway after Warren Buffett is no longer around, I’ve written what I hope to be the definitive book explaining how Berkshire will continue to prosper, thanks to the culture that Buffett has forged at Berkshire.

The book, Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values, will be released in October, as we put the finishing touches on it this summer.

Available for pre-ordering now at amazon (and B&N, BAM and elsewhere), the book has been endorsed by Adam Grant of Penn’s Wharton School, and author of Give and Take, in the following terms:

How did Warren Buffett build such a great firm as Berkshire Hathaway? To unravel this mystery, Lawrence Cunningham takes a deep dive inside the cultures of Berkshire’s subsidiaries, highlighting the value of integrity, kinship, and autonomy — and revealing how building moats around the castles may help the firm outlast its visionary founder.

Bob Hagstrom, best-selling author of the 1995 book, The Warren Buffett Way, has endorsed Berkshire Beyond Buffett in this way:

Lawrence Cunningham is well known to the Berkshire community, as Buffett’s pick for cataloging and organizing his famous annual reports in The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America. Now Cunningham takes us in a new direction, inside the companies that make up Berkshire.  Berkshire Beyond Buffett is an insightful and important book.

Tom Murphy, the legendary businessman who built ABC before selling it to Walt Disney, has generously contributed the foreword to the book–itself worth the price!   As Tom explains:

Berkshire’s trajectory has been so seamless that Warren’s professional transition has gone almost unnoticed. The man who began business life as a precocious “stock picker” has morphed into chief executive of one of the largest collections of businesses in the world. Larry’s book astutely chronicles this development.

Berkshire’s scale and Buffett’s stature make the book timely and relevant, as suggested by news coverage this morning by Bloomberg Business Week of the company’s $30 billion commitment to renewable energy.  The book is based in part on interviews and surveys I conducted with dozens of Berkshire executives, including many chief executives of the fifty subsidiary companies whose cultures and histories I recount in the book.  The following is from the book jacket, courtesy of Columbia University Press:

Berkshire Hathaway, the $300 billion conglomerate that Warren Buffett built, is among the world’s largest and most famous corporations. Yet, for all its power and celebrity, few people understand Berkshire, and many assume it cannot survive without Buffett. This book proves that assumption wrong.

In a comprehensive portrait of the distinct corporate culture that unites and sustains Berkshire’s fifty direct subsidiaries, Lawrence A. Cunningham unearths the traits that assure the conglomerate’s perpetual prosperity.  Riveting stories recount each subsidiary’s origins, triumphs, and journey to Berkshire and reveal the strategies managers use to generate economic value from intangible values, such as thrift, integrity, entrepreneurship, autonomy, and a sense of permanence.

Rich with lessons for those wishing to profit from the Berkshire model, this engaging book is a valuable read for entrepreneurs, business owners, managers, and investors, and it makes an important resource for scholars of corporate stewardship. General readers will enjoy learning how an iconoclastic businessman transformed a struggling textile company into a corporate fortress destined to be his lasting legacy.

untitled