[Midtown café — November 27, 2012, 2:15 PM]
Maren was already at the table.
This was, I had begun to understand, simply how she operated: she arrived first, chose the position with the best sightlines, and was reading something on her phone when you came in. The reading was real — she was actually reading — but it also communicated that she had already been here long enough to have settled in and that she was not someone who waited in the door.
She put the phone down when I sat.
"Thank you for coming," she said.
"You said I should know something about Veridion."
"I did."
The café was mid-afternoon quiet: two laptops, a woman with a stroller, a barista who had been cleaning the same section of counter for the last three minutes. Maren had ordered something already — a flat white, mostly finished. I ordered a coffee from the passing server without looking at the menu.
She was wearing a charcoal jacket. No lanyard. No professional insignia. She looked like a person having a business conversation in a café, which she was, and also like a person who had thought carefully about how to look like that.
"The Veridion defense offer," she said. "You received it through Reyes."
"I received a referral. I haven't committed."
"I know." A pause. Not theatrical — functional. She was deciding how much of the structure to show. "I have a position in Veridion. I've had it since September."
"A short position."
"A short position. The mass-tort filing is a catalyst, but catalysts need duration. The litigation calendar on a class action of this scope runs eighteen months at minimum. Three years if the defense is well-argued." She picked up the flat white and finished it. "A defense with your regulatory background — you ran a CFIUS matter through London ICC arbitration last month, that's specific credibility — runs the calendar more effectively than a larger firm that delegates to associates."
I let her speak. Detection was running in the background on the $200 LP I had converted from the replenished savings that morning: two LP for detection support on a meeting that required it.
She was not lying. Everything she was saying was true and she believed it.
"The defense calendar," I said. "What do you mean by effective."
"A strong defense delays the class certification. Delays the discovery completion. Delays the expert report schedule. Delay is not failure — it's the natural rhythm of complex litigation. The market prices in uncertainty over time. Sustained uncertainty is favorable." She looked at me with the specific directness of someone explaining something she considers obvious. "I don't need you to lose. I need the litigation to run at the speed that reflects its actual complexity."
"Which is considerable."
"Which is considerable." She set down the empty cup. "Klein Legal takes the case. You defend it properly. The calendar runs. The plaintiffs' bar has to meet a high standard to certify the class. That's not corruption — that's the process working."
I looked at the table. The coffee arrived. I picked it up.
"The people in the class," I said. "The 3,000 potential plaintiffs. They're alleging real harm."
She was quiet for a second. Not uncomfortable — this was not a question she found destabilizing. She had an answer and the answer had been refined by repetition.
"Every mass-tort has a liability profile," she said. "The device has a documented failure rate; the plaintiffs' bar will argue the company should have disclosed it earlier. That's a legitimate argument and a competent defense should meet it on the merits." She tilted her head slightly. "The fact that there are plaintiffs doesn't mean the company is wrong. Litigation exists because facts are contested."
She had not said the harm is real. She had said the argument is legitimate. She had translated the people in the class action — the 3,000 potential plaintiffs with documented arrhythmia events in their medical records — into a liability profile. Into a variable in a financial model. Into the opposition argument in a legal brief.
Detection ran the micro-fracture.
It was not a lie. It was a story she had told herself so many times that the seams had disappeared. She had constructed a worldview in which her financial interest and a good-faith defense were perfectly aligned, and the people in the class were an abstraction — not people Maren had decided not to care about, but people Maren had stopped seeing as people without having made that choice consciously.
I had seen this frequency before. In my own voice, early on, when I was treating Harold as a source of PH intelligence before I had noticed what he was. When I was tracking Mike Ross's "triple-value LP multiplier" instead of seeing a person grieving in a courtroom.
The difference between early-Don and Maren was not that I had good intentions and she had bad ones. It was that I had eventually looked directly at what I was doing.
She was still not looking.
She would, I suspected, spend years not looking, and the years would be financially successful, and the not-looking would become so complete that it would feel like a normal way to be.
The Library, quietly: #maren-vance — self-deception-micro-fracture confirmed. Source: Veridion plaintiffs rendered abstract. Not malice. Not ignorance. Structural self-narrative.
I drank the coffee. It was good coffee, which was worth noting.
"You know I'm not taking the case," I said.
She looked at me. Not surprised — the look of someone who had been reading the room for two minutes and had drawn the correct conclusion and was confirming it.
"I had thought you might," she said. "You need the revenue and the case fits your specialty."
"It does."
"But you've looked at the documents."
"I've looked at the documents."
She was quiet. She picked up her phone — the movement of someone wrapping up a conversation that had reached its natural end. She was not angry. She was, very slightly, the specific professional shade of annoyed that a sharp person has when they have made a clean offer and had it declined for non-financial reasons.
"The privilege log," she said. "You found the gap."
It was not a question. It was the specific sentence of a person who is sharp enough to reconstruct what the other person found from the fact of their refusal.
I stood. I took out my wallet. I put two bills on the table — her flat white and my coffee.
"Maren." She looked up. "The people in the class are going to have their argument heard on its merits. Not by me."
She looked at the bills. She looked back at me.
"You're leaving money," she said.
"Yes."
"I don't need you to pay for my coffee."
"I know you don't."
She held my look for one second. The micro-fracture was there in the quiet — the one millimeter of visible seam in the self-narrative. Not enough to break anything. Just enough to be seen.
"Don Klein," she said, as I was turning. She said it the way people say a name when they have decided to remember it.
I left.
The November afternoon was cold enough to require a coat. I walked west toward the office, and behind me the café held Maren Vance and an empty flat white cup and two bills on a table, and I did not look back, because the exit was the argument, and the argument was complete.
✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦
Read A LOT more chapters for free at unwrittenrealm.com
✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦
TL;DR — Patreon has the chapters ahead.
Silver / $6 / 15 or more chap ahead
Gold / $9 / 20 or more chap ahead
Platinum / $15 / 25 or more chap ahead, no weekly wait
That's it. patreon.com/fanficwriter1
If reviews aren't your thing, no pressure — they do help though.