Member-only story
The Problem With Controlling the Narrative
Resisting Misdirection in the Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
When I was a baby lawyer, working at a big private law firm, a senior associate taught me the most important rule about legal writing: control the narrative; always be clear about what you are not doing.
And so began every legal memo: this memo does not reach the question of X, or include a detailed analysis of Y. So began every verbal presentation or report on an assignment. And so, incidentally, began my internal monologues, when drowning in self-doubt about my decision to work there and the assignments I’d been given: this memo does not condone X behavior; my work for this client is limited to Y topic. It was a good writing lesson and a terrible life lesson: I was so busy anticipating criticism, I wasn’t thinking about affirmative goals. I was just looking for some way to assert control in an environment where I had none.
I was reminded of this recently, when I felt myself cringing at an email subject line: “Docket Subscription for Purdue Pharma L.P. (19–23649).” It’s my daily (or sometimes twice- or even thrice-daily) docket update from the bankruptcy proceeding of Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin. I’ve been tracking the case since 2020. Lately, it’s become harder, because it brings up a lot of anxiety from my big-firm days — and so much anger.
