Eat What You Kill: The Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer

by Milton C. Regan Jr.

"A wonderful character study of someone whose cognitive dissonance ('I am brilliant, therefore I must be doing everything correctly') led directly to his downfall. Students would do well to read this book before venturing forth into a large firm, a small firm, or any pressure-cooker environment."
-Nancy Rapoport, University of Houston Law Center

" Eat What You Kill is gripping and well written. . . . It weaves in academic commentary and understanding of professional ethics issues in a way that makes it accessible to everyone."
-Frank Partnoy, University of San Diego Law School


He had it all, and then he lost it. But why did he do it, risking everything-wealth, success, livelihood, freedom, and the security of family?

Eat What You Kill is the story of John Gellene, a rising star and bankruptcy partner at one of Wall Street's most venerable law firms. But when Gellene became entangled in a web of conflicting corporate and legal interests involving one of his clients, he was eventually charged with making false statements, indicted, found guilty of a federal crime, and sentenced to prison.

Milton C. Regan Jr. uses Gellene's case to prove that such conflicting interests are now disturbingly commonplace in the world of American corporate finance. Combining a journalist's eye with sharp psychological insight, Regan spins Gellene's story into a gripping drama of fundamental tensions in modern-day corporate practice and describes in perfect miniature the inexorable confluence of the interests of American corporations and their legal counselors.

This confluence may seem natural enough, but because these law firms serve many masters-corporations, venture capitalists, shareholder groups-it has paradoxically led to deep, pervasive conflicts of interest. Eat What You Kill gives us the story of a man trapped in this labyrinth, and reveals the individual and systemic factors that contributed to Gellene's demise.

402 pages, Paperback

First published September 15, 2004

Reviews

[cncundiff · Rating 1 out of 5]

If there were a poster child for "Tell, don't show," it would be this book.

An Amazon review succinctly describes what I am about to ramble on about for much longer than necessary (in the style of this book); that is to say, this is a 30-page law review article packed into a 350+ page monograph.

I should be somewhat kind and say that I struggled with whether to give this one or two stars. There is some redeeming material in the book. It describes the misadventure of Mr. Gellene, whose story encapsulates the vicious environment of corporate practice in the 1980s and 90s. It touches on the ethics of bankruptcy lawyers, but analysis of these ethics are touted as a theme when they feel like an afterthought. The parts of prose that the author lets himself go are somewhat engaging. In fact, for anyone interested in the meat of this book, I highly recommend you read the prologue, epilogue, and the actual court case itself. But for the most part, the book is told one fact after another, starting with Gellene passing the bar and ending with him in prison (this is not a spoiler; it's clear from the prologue what the poor man's fate is). From the endless stream of facts and quotations, it feels like I'm supposed to root for Gellene--to the reader, he is a brilliant but careless lawyer swept up in the politics of multi-million dollar corporations. The author rambles through names and companies with a familiarity that touches on his expertise, but leaves the reader doubling back through copy-pasted paragraphs to remember who is fighting whom. In the end, I felt like I was reading something akin to A Song of Ice and Fire, except instead of sweet dragons, intricate dialogue, and gory twists, it was long swathes of the bankruptcy code violations.

But after the story, the author takes a detour into speculation-town, and I think that's what brought my final review down to one star. Speculation can be interesting; one need only look at conspiracy theories to see our furtive enjoyment of facts unrevealed. But the author decides to ramble from theory to theory, offering no more than "this seems like something he/she might do," ending solidly on the conclusion that Gellene's malicious crime was no accident. This sudden paradigm shift feels less like a reveal, and more like an awkward "never-mind" after the build-up of a tragic fall-guy.

Maybe I'm just the wrong audience here. But as someone who has read through a large number of law review articles containing material I had no prior understanding of, this book does itself no favors to be as long and arduous as it is. Much like the relics it seeks to call out, it exhibits the entrenched legal writing style of "tell, don't show."

[Alex Chen · Rating 3 out of 5]

pretty good book, covers its subject matter well

only critique is it focuses too much on the technical details of the bankruptcy proceedings at the center of the book, would have preferred a higher level overview

[Zach Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read United States v. Gellene 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999) for my professional responsibility class early in my 2L year, so I was fully aware that this book covered some relatively dry material. Still, as a young attorney, I was intrigued with the idea that a BigLaw partner like John Gellene could so brazenly ignore what seemed to me to be the simple disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2014. Eat What You Kill adequately describes the circumstances behind the decisions that landed Gellene in federal prison, but the book’s author, Milton C. Regan, Jr., cuts as many corners as Gellene did. Regan’s apathy for editing undermines his effort to publish a timely commentary on a truly interesting legal development. Eleven years after the book was originally published, the timeliness has faded, but the apathy of the author and his editors is crystal clear.

Here’s the first sentence of the book’s second chapter: “FOR SEVERAL REASONS, Jo]hn Gellene likely was very eager to accept Larry Lederman’s request to work on the Bucyrus bankruptcy.” There is absolutely no reason for that bracket to be there, but there it is. Far worse than his disdain for the proper use of brackets, however, is Regan’s apparent disdain for his readers. Instead of referring back to an earlier page on which a relevant fact is stated, Regan is content to copy and paste entire paragraphs. As a result, readers are left constantly feeling an almost imperceptible déjà vu.

Eat What You Kill is a decent book that adequately places an interesting legal development in context. But the book’s condemnation of Gellene’s willingness to cut corners is undermined by the author’s clear affliction with the same sin.

[P · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although Professor Regan sensibly describes the pathologies and problems of modern biglaw through this case study, it’s a 40-page law review article crammed into 350 pages.

[Luis · Rating 2 out of 5]

For school. Not impressed.