I told you people he was in it for the publicity.

I pity the kid, I really do, if he really believes the "stand up and make a difference" position he has adopted. If this goes to trial, he gets smeared, the issues get smudged, and even if he wins he will never work again. And do you really think the culture will change?

P.S. The camera really does add 10 lbs.

"narcissistic lunatic" really nails it. he's standing up and making a difference for whom? that list of openly gay partners at S&C? they seem to have done all right even before crusader Aaron started his tilt at the windmills.

i never thought i could feel sympathy for a law firm, let alone S&C, but this guy has brought me to it.

S&C is a great firm for Canadians. I'm from Canada and summered at S&C last year. Not once did I encounter or hear about any discrimination against Canadians. What I did notice was the large number of Canadians at the firm. I got to meet many of them since S&C organized numerous formal and informal events for Canadian summers to network with Canadian attorneys.

I also interacted with several of the people named in Charney's complaint. They were universally enthusiastic about Canadian attorneys and Canada generally. Indeed, many American attorneys I met at S&C expressed their admiration (and envy) for Canada's social model.

There were, of course, occasional jibes about Canada, but nothing I would describe as "denigrating." The comments were always good natured - akin to the kind of thing John Stewart says about Canada on the Daily Show. Put in context, no reasonable person would find such comments offensive.

But did Charney put things in context? The answer seems to be no, since his claim that S&C discriminates against Canadians is based on double-hearsay. (See paragraph 55 of the Complaint).

I'm going back to S&C, so maybe that makes me biased and undercuts my credibility. But actions speak louder than words. I wouldn't chose to work at S&C unless I felt they openly and warmly welcomed Canadians.

Wow, he was really well-spoken. I was surprised.

Wow a lawyer who graduated Columbia and Brown knows how to talk!

One thing I find telling is the willingness to go on television and be interviewed. I don't think this is a "work" -- he honestly believes he was discriminated and retaliated against. The question is, whether he WAS, or whether he's misinterpreted events.

His willingness to involve other, "innocent" parties seems indicative of a sincerely held belief in what occurred.

Hmm, is it just me, or is it telling that the only people playing D here are 1) partners and 2) summers from 2006? Summers, you don't know shit. And partners have a stake in it.

Otherwise, deafening silence.

Wow. He makes a great witness on his own behalf. I don't think he is a narcissit loon though. I think he really believes everythig he is saying and that he knows his career as a lawyer is over adn so he's going to the mat. I know some people think he's been a media hound but then again, he's one guy against one of the most powerful law firms on the planet.

To anonymous @ 7:49, you're right that I "don't know shit" about whether there was discrimination against gays. But I do know there wasn't any discrimination against Canadians. Not just from my own experience, but also from what I heard from Canadian attorneys I met - including Grinberg, who had nothing but good things to say about S&C when he came to my school to recruit.

It also doesn't take a legal genius to see that Charney's "anti-Canadian" claim is problematic, if not farcical. As another poster wrote, I don't know if Charney is lying or if he just misinterpreted events. But if he's wrong about the existence of one kind of discrimination, it's entirely possible he's wrong about the other.

In what way did the firm "deal with" the a-hole partner?

For those who think he's just in it for the money and publicity, you're simply out of your minds, if you have any in the first place. This guy didn't work his ass off at Brown, Columbia, and S&C only to wake up one morning and decide he'd rather see his name in lights and go for the big payday now, screw the future. You have to be an idiot or a bigot to think otherwise. The merits of his case and chances for success may be a different story, and you can question some of his tactics, maybe, but his motives are bulletproof.

Warrants repeating: he was told by a partner to end a relationship. Regardless of whether he was in that relationship in the first place, imagine having a partner tell you, "Dump your girlfriend" or "Divorce your wife."

I agree with S&C, Canadians are irrelevant...

This is really tiresome, so let's set the record straight.

When Aaron started at S&C as a first year associate, an associate he knew from his summer associateship took him under his wing and worked with him quite regularly as is common for a first year associate. After several months working with this associate almost exclusively, Aaron began working for another mid-level associate on a regular basis and, after a few months, began working exclusively with that associate for 3+ years as basically that associate's designated assistant. He went so far as to work out of that associate's office, leaving his own office essentially an unused and empty room with a computer on a desk. This arrangement did not last for one killer deal, but for several years. S&C partners absolutely do not care about associate's personal lives other than probably preferring that they didn't have them, but they do care about making money and staffing deals. Having a now mid-level associate who should have been making independent contributions to an M&A group wracked by attrition instead exclusively assisting a single senior associate did not strike many people as a fair or efficient use of scarce associate resources. Questions about this relationship had nothing to do with sexual orientation, as the senior associate was pretty notably heterosexual and engaged to be married, and everything to do with bottom line management. Having his rabbi pull rank and have him unstaffed from unpleasant deals probably didn't make Aaron a lot friends in the partnership either.

I have no doubt that notoriously abusive partners were abusive to Aaron and the abuse had absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with the fact that such partners are abusive assholes. Of course garden variety or even extraordinary assholeish behavior at the workplace is not generally actionable, so Aaron has to construe this behavior as discriminatory activity.

If you want a glimpse of Aaron's character, look at the way he gratuitously salts his complaint with negative facts about named associates without even claiming that they did him harm (in one case, essentially throwing his first mentor at the firm under the proverbial bus). During this bizarre video interview, Aaron asserts that the firm's staffing of an associate who he claims was about to be fired on the Inco matter demonstrates the firms lack of commitment to Inco and to Canada. I guess Aaron considered the Canadian partners on the matter irrelevant (anti-Canadian bastard!). And even if the associate he's referring to was the only senior associate staffed on the matter (he wasn't), it makes my blood boil that this arrogant flunky whose only independent act of lawyering in 4+ years was likely drafting a specious pro se complaint against S&C and posting it on the internet would impugn the ability of a perfectly competent lawyer and stand-up guy who could literally work circles around Aaron without the benefit of having his hand held at every moment of his career. Carelessly maliging decent people like that is not evidence of courage; that's what non-assholes call a dick move. Even in Canada.

...his Rabbi? Can we leave the anti-semitism at the door, please?

"Having a now mid-level associate [...]wracked by attrition"

The grammatical lapses say it all, don't they?

Double hearsay? hilarious.

Ex-S&C associate here. I no longer work in either law or business, so I definitely have no personal axe to grind on this one.

Just wanted to say that Enough Already's formulation of the facts is quite consistent with my experience of S&C: partners really don't care who you sleep with, but an "exclusive relationship" with a senior associate, to the extent where you work out of his office all day long, would definitely be considered "unnatural" (justifiably so, IMHO).

To me, this seems a much more persuasive context for the "unnatural relationship" remark by Korry than the gay-bashing one. And I say this with full knowledge that Korry is a bitch from hell.

I have to wonder about psts like the one from Enough Already. There sure seem to be a lot of people from the firm posting on here. People with ve$ted interests of their own.

"wracked" modifies "M&A group," not "associate."

the original poster's text is grammatically correct.

Yeah, the grammar criticism is specious. The sentence is complex, but take some time to parse it before you criticize.

Why are so many partners assholes? It's a stressful job. Often the only people up to the task are, quite frankly, not nice human beings. If there's a heaven and hell, most of these people will end up in the latter. But here on earth, we need them.

----
"Big, successful companies just aren't built by men like you, nine-to-five and home and family. They're built by men like me, who give everything they've got to it, who live it body and soul."

Enough Already is absolutely right, and this is coming from someone who has no interest ("ve$ted" or otherwise) in this matter but who knows people in the M&A group at S&C.

And how absurd it is to suggest that people posting here who actually know the parties and were there for the events have less credible views than those who have merely watched Charney on some tv show and read his public statements (and probably not the complaint itself, since on their face his allegations are clearly legally insufficent and, basically, nonsensical).

And why is Charney's apparent belief in his cause inconsistent with him being narcissistic? Isn't narcissism the belief that your interests give you license to trample over everyone else?

What an idiot. Considering what S & C pays and their glamourous looking offices, I'd take all the discrimination in the world to work there. Instead I'm in a windowless little office at a crappy little general practice/estate planning firm where the furniture and carpet are worn beyond thrift store quality and I'll be paying my law school loans until I drop dead from exhaustion (they are forgiven at that time). The partner I work for here tells me that some day, all this can be mine - whoopee! Think I'll shoot myself first. As if I give a shit anymore. I'll take all the insults in the world for a six-figure salary, excellent health benefits, an office with a view of the Hudson river and an Amex expense account. Now the question is, after this little episode, could Mr. Charney even get a job at the dump where I work? Potential employers don't take too kindly to people that sued their last employer.

To Anonymous at 7:49 - why do you think that the only people defending the firm are partners and summer associates? Trust me when I tell you that there has never been a rallying call to S&C's associates louder than the indiscriminate smear campaign that was filed and circulated everywhere from gawker to greedy associates two days ago. Sexual harrassment is a serious, punishable offense - and accusations of it should not be doled out lightly. Every word of Enough Already's post is correct and it's about time that I read it on one of these blogs. ABC and his mentor associate categorically isolated themselves from almost every other person in the M&A group and coasted by with assignments from a single partner while the rest of the group operated as an integrated whole to get through the extraordinary amount of work that flows through this place every day. They worked with no one else; they spoke with no one else. Nobody here cares what their colleagues are doing in the bedroom. We care that work is approached with a team mentality and a strong loyalty to the amazing group of people with whom we have the chance to work.

Have I had difficult experiences here? You have no idea.

Are there difficult partners here? H*ll yes.

But I cannot for the life of me understand how that justifies, e.g., an email to gawker.com (?!) with questionable and, more importantly, irrelevant details about other associate's fears, people set to be "fired", an HR director in a sympathetic moment, and naming of the wives of 30+ years of 2 of the most respected men in this field.

And Annexing the partnership agreement?? Wake up, people. This is not the poster boy for any cause. If there are any law students reading, you now know the definition of "abuse of process".

Any please spare me the pointing out of any typos in this post.

If you have an offer to work at S&C, then you have an offer to work at many other top firms... if you pick S&C, you deserve whatever lashing you get. There is plenty of information out there on each firm. The defense that "yeah, we have lots of A-holes, and we treat people like crap...but its not actionable." Should tell you everything you need to know about S&C and its supporters.

Will clients care? Walmart has fired firms for less.

The only thing I want to come out of this is that the whole legal community in NYC should know that Korry is a slave driver. She is an abusive partner and practically ever associate in the firm tries their best to stay far far away from here. I HOPE THAT SOME PARTNERS ON THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ARE READING THIS!!!

Korry seems like a tough nut to crack. I think her father may have been the anti-Marxist ambassador to Chile in the late 60s or early 70s (so probably a conservative father, though not close with Nixon). Her own political supports trends to the Clinton/Dean wing of the party. So not clear where this alleged homophobia would come from. Has anyone actually tried to befriend her at work? Some must win her approval (WLRK husband, for example). She's taken a tough beating. I'd like to hear the other side of her story.

OK, I just watched the video. I was impressed with his speaking style. He comes off as a nice guy. As a gay associate, I am inclined to favor his view. But ---

1. He is representing himself??!! WTF? There are so many plaintiffs' employment lawyers in this city, it is impossible to believe that one wouldn't take him on a contingency basis. Just a shot at getting a big award against S&C would bring some of the better ones out of the woodwork. I really was baffled by that, and I didn't think his explanation was persuasive. Why would plaintiffs' lawyers be afraid of suing a big law firm? Why would they care? And, of course, there have been many non-sexual orientation lawsuits brought against law firms; the plaintiffs in those cases found representation.

2. It does take courage to sue SC. But you are not supposed to talk about how courageous you are on TV.

3. Even though I hate anti-gay a-holes, I can't get over the fact that modern employment law encourages people to be hyper-sensitive. When that partner made the first remark about bending over and picking up a document, why not just hit him with a comeback remark. Or roll your eyes and say "Not funny." Charney says he was "horrified" at the remark. Please. A continous barrage of hostile comments is one thing (and maybe he can prove that); but don't feed me this Catherine MacKinnon-esque crap about how each word wounds your soul like a dagger.

Sorry, Ham and Egg Lawyer, you lost me at "glamourous looking offices".

Do people disagree that Krautheimer's comments constitute actionable
hostile work environment? Forget about everything else, including that
you can't say S&C is a horrible, discriminatory place just because of
one partner. If the K-man made those comments, I think it is
actionable. And what about the phony performance review? If those
things really happened, then S&C should correct the problem, Charney
should get whatever a jury says he deserves, and then we all move on.

S&C is a tremendous firm. But if ABC's allegations have any truth to
them, then S&C is a tremendous firm with an embarrassing, public
problem that will require a humbling, public solution. After S&C takes
its medicine, it should go back to being a legal powerhouse. They will
still have my respect.

Lucky, if you think two comments in 4+ years at the firm is a hostile environment, you need to do a little more reading in that area.

Having read the complaint, even if every word that he said is true, it's probably not a hostile environment.

I love how the current S&C associates trash this guy. I spent 5 years at S&C and never worked with a bigger bunch of sycophants and cowards. I left on good terms and now work for a client that, at my urging, is reducing its use of S&C more and more each year. Why? Arrogance, inefficiency and bills that are not even close to justified by the service provided. Bottom line: people who think their sh*t doesn't stink do not engage in the necessary constant self-evaluation and critical analysis to improve themselves and their organization.

Aaron Charney has more guts that any 10 S&C M&A associates, who have such a low view of themselves (are a result of repeated humiliation and abuse) that they lose sight of the difference between right and wrong. If there is ANY truth to what Eric K. is alleged to have said to Aaron about picking up documents and documents having sh*t on them, then Eric K. should have been fired on the spot, as would happen in most well-managed businesses. But I have no doubt that Ted Rogers, S&C's labor and employment "guru" (ha!) gave the firm advice that firing Eric K. would be tantamount to an admission of his wrongdoing. So they gambled and hoped Aaron and the problem would go away. They hugely miscalculated. And Aaron is looking the bully in the eye, with his whole career to lose, and saying: enough is enough. Bravo Aaron.

Charney lacks the resources to attack S&C using conventional tactics, so he is using the ubiquitous medium of the Internet to spread his message. Big freaking deal. Who cares where and how often this guy posts his complaint or how many interviews he gives. This is not a tea party he is hosting. This is all out war with a hugely powerful adversary. So if he goes to the mattresses, so be it. Again, bravo.

Finally, for those S&C associates who use anonymity on these blogs as a shield and then rail on Korry and other partners for being c***s and a******s, how can you look yourself in the mirror and still criticize Charney? He did not hide. He walked into partners offices and said "I am being harrassed". That is like dropping a nuclear bomb in your office. He knew that was the beginning of the end. But you brave souls won't even look Korry in the eye and say "don't f*cking treat me this way". Why not? Because you are afraid of what happens next to you and your budding career. Charney faces those fears. You hide from them. So where do you think you get the moral authority to attack his acts of courage?

Anyone know if it it accrate that Alexandra Korry is on the Board of Trustees of the prestigious the Dalton School? That is supposedely a very progressive, liberal school. It probably has its share of gazillionaire familieis and all... but how embarrassing for Dalton if that woman is on their Board!

Whether or not the two comments constitute actionable discrimination is not really the main issue. At this point, it is the retaliation that S&C took against Charney for raising his claim of discrimination internally. Based on his allegations, the retaliation claim is much stronger than the initial harrassment claim and could stand on its own.

It's hard to take any of these comments seriously anymore though. At least half of the posters must be biased in some way or another. Doesn't mean they are not entitled to their opinion, but please, let's not go on attacking each other's intelligence for believing (or not believing) the charges.

9:29 here. Sorry folks. Typo City up there. Hard for me to type while drinking the coffee. :)

I don't work at S&C, I don't even work as a lawyer anymore. Can't help but be compelled by this story though. I am not so much hung up on the fact that there are seome seriously sicko arrogant partners at that firm as I am about the way nothing much was done after Charney complined. I can't get over the scope of the retaliation. I mean, why circle their wagons and protect other partners? Is it b/c no one ever dared to take them on before or they crushed people before for doing it? I wonder what else these partners have gotten away with over the years, ya know?

Given your scathing comments about anonymous postings, I take it that "S&C S[i]cophants & Cowards" is your proper name? Either that or you too are -- how did you put it? -- "us[ing] anonymity on these blogs as a shield and then rail[ing] on" people who, by your accounts, are plagued by some strange combination of arrogance and low self esteem. Maybe they just don't think that a few difficult partners are a good basis for leaving a job where they're getting amazing experience that might, say, allow them to get a cushy in-house position with a good client after 5 years. But I guess you wouldn't understand that....

ANYONE? ANYONE? Still really want to know if this Alexandra Korry is on the Board of Trustees at the Dalton School. Same sex parents have a right to know before they apply there! Thanks

Is Aaron wearing the same tie in his interview and in his S&C profile photo?

So much for gays being creative dressers.

No. The one in the pic. looks more red and less textured. :)

If only SOME of the allegations are true it is awful... who would tolerate this abuse? How can a firm get away with this?

J.B.--you are correct of course. AC does not claim hostile environment, just straight-out discrimination and retaliation.

6:56 PM: Maybe "the camera really does add 10 lbs." But I'd still do him. Love to slide something in between those parted lips of his....

>>>Just wanted to say that Enough Already's formulation of the facts is quite consistent with my experience of S&C: partners really don't care who you sleep with, but an "exclusive relationship" with a senior associate, to the extent where you work out of his office all day long, would definitely be considered "unnatural" (justifiably so, IMHO). To me, this seems a much more persuasive context for the "unnatural relationship" remark by Korry than the gay-bashing one.<<<

This is really not a persuasive explanation. If this was truly the case, the word "unnatural" doesn't seem like the one that would have been used to describe the situation. And I'd expect most people would be especially skeptical given that a not-uncommon slur against gay couples is that their relationship is "unnatural."

I looked at the statute this guy brought his suit under. he's plead it right. The definition incorporates the hostile work environ. in its "discrimination" cetegory and he states it at the end of the Complaint.

I used to work at S&C. When I was there, I complained about extremely abusive treatment and then saw nothing done about it. Alexandra Korry was just one of the partners I complained about. Instead of leaving right away or making a big public fight of it, I just chugged along sadly and cowardly until an in-house position came up that provided me with the same pay and didn't subject me to the same type of abuse. I figured, "why throw away my years of hard work because some people are jerks?" I just tried to steer clear of the people who were horrible to me and kept my head down for the rest of my stay. That may have been a mistake. Aaron is choosing to do something about it instead of allowing it to go on to affect others that come after him. I think that's applaudable. Perhaps now someone will do something so that young, bright attorneys do not become disenchanted victims.

I have to be honest: I loved working on the deals I worked on at S&C. The pay was great and most of the lawyers knock your socks off - personally and professionally. I met some of my best friends and had some of my most wonderful professional accomplishments there. However, none of that justifies a work environment where abuse is tolerated. That's why I left. I don't think anyone is saying that all or even most of the attorneys at S&C are jerks or that, when you walk the halls, you're assaulted by mean glares and have discriminatory comments hurled at you. I think the issue is more that when something happens, no one does anything about it. So all the posts from summer associates and associates at S&C claiming that they did not find the work environment at S&C to be anything but wonderful is irrelevant. We should be focusing on what happens when someone bad happens: What actions were taken when a victim of such behavior brought the issue to management's attention? How was that person made to feel after they complained?

Alexandra Korry and various other partners and associates at the firm have been CONSISTENTLY complainted about and no one has done anything about them. The fact that posts on this website from current and former S&C associates consistently assert that there are KNOWN problem individuals at S&C, like Alexandra Korry, should be alarming to people. The prospects of S&C as a wonderful and professionally fulfilling workplace are extraordinary if it would just have better processes in place to address abusive and inappropriate conduct by partners and senior associates.

Also, David, summer associates at S&C and at any other firm have no real concept of what it's actually like to work (and really live) at a firm. As a summer associate, you're shielded way too much from the bad and the ugly at a firm to be able to accurately comment on its culture, its shortcomings and even its strengths. Trust me, I used to be a summer associate and I've known many an attorney (i.e. all my law school friends and summer associates at the two firms I've worked at) who started out as summer associates.

Finally, having met and spoken with Aaron during my stay at S&C, I completely believe him. He was the S&C poster-child. He was so in love with that place. Even if you've never met Aaron, as one post stated, his academic and professional pedigree points to the fact that he's not some lazy, publicity-starved nut looking for a big pay-day. Why would he throw away years of hard work (Brown, Columbia, S&C) and a flourishing legal career ahead of him unless he was truly discriminated against and offended? Aaron's not stupid. He must have been truly hurt and the actions he was subjected to must have been unmistakeably discriminatory.

Karen, you're a few hundred miles away from understanding what S&C Sicophants & Cowards is saying. He rightly points out that it's bogus for S&C associates to criticize Aaron for taking a stand when they're too afraid to even imagine themselves in his shoes. That point can be made anonymously.

I have to agree with Jasmine. Charney was the biggest cheerleader ever for S&C. They really had to have a done a number on him for it to get to this point. So sad all around.

I don't want to comment on the specifics of Aaron's case but right now S&C associates are loving the fact that the world (and hopefully the management committee) is getting to know that to work for the devil himslef is better than working for Korry. There is not one other partner here who is so hated and reviled like Korry is. And all of you guys at WLRS, I want to know what her husband is like? He must be a wimp since there is no way that her attitude does not extend to her home.

Wettzell Laser Ranging System (WLRS)

What does WLRS stand for? Wafer-Level Reliability Statistics

Welcome to the West Lancs Rocketry Society

Radio WLRS 105.1 FM Shepherdsville KY

WORLD LOG ROLLING RANKING SYSTEM (WLRS)

WACHTELL LIPTON law firm?

I had more than a few classes with Aaron at Columbia Law (though we never knew each other well enough to be considered true friends) and I have to agree with Jasmine. He was earnest, but he was S&C's biggest fan, and in no way a publicity (or even money) hound. No one, especially Aaron, who has put in the time and effort to accomplish what he has is going to wake up one morning and dash off a Complaint against their employer because of one bad day. Clearly this is something that he wrestled with and likely had sleepless nights over, before deciding to take that action.

WLRS= Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, Katz.

Thanks for the clue -- see, not everyone here is a legalwonk. Some of us just enjoy the salacious idiocy of this guy and the cute headshots.

It's really not funny that he's wasting a huge amount of everybody's time and attention. Can you imagine how many millions of billable partner time is being diverted to this nonsense?

weapons locating radars

This post has caused quite a stir:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/charney_v_sullivan_cromwell_aa_1.php#comment-7932

I have a pretty good idea of who that is. He never worked on an M&A deal in his life, so he has no clue. He also routinely left at 6 pm and rolled in at 10:30; hardly qualifying him as a true Alum.

Please don't post again Enough Already as you have no authority on who is under what bus!

Who are we supposed to believe: Enough Already or someone who calls himself Smilin' Jack - da Beava? I'd take Enough Already's word for it, and not just because I worked at S&C in the M&A department, but because if Smilin' Jack - da Beava doesn't like it, it's probably true.

It's amazing how little Enough Already knows. He didn't even know that earnings releases were supposed to be filed on 8Ks to keep them all in one spot.

Also, he has never even broken 40 minutes for a 10-K and wears a funny hat.

Smilin' Jack - da Beava sounds like the type of person who would get an underwriting agreement thrown at him by a real estate partner. He also seems like a person who spent more time on the pipe than on the clock in his days at S&C. Enough Already sounds like the type of guy who probably saved Smilin' Jack - da Beava's skin a few times by finding mistakes he overlooked in his rush out the door to Fraunces Tavern at 6:30. Don't trust Smilin' Jack - da Beava (AKA, the Weasel).