If true, how much of that do you think was the type of overcompensation that some deeply-closeted people engage in when they're in denial about themselves? See, e.g., Ted Haggard.

I'm an openly gay 2L at Columbia and REALLY PO-ed by LeGaL's behavior here. I just sent the following email to the LeGaL email address.

As a current, openly gay law student with a deep commitment to civil rights, I write to express my deep concern with the recent comments of Mr. Scheich to members of the press about the Sullivan and Cromwell/Charney dispute. I am even more offended by the recent response Mr. Scheich gave to an individual who expressed his concern with the comments.

Regardless of what the merits of the case at hand, are regardless of whatever "research" he has done, it is simply unacceptable for any comments about the merits of the case to be made. Even if the case is found to be baseless, such comments from a leader of the gay legal community will only discourage those who are discriminated against to remain silent.

To quote Mr. Scheich:
"Who are we to believe? Mr. Charney who has never shown any interest in the gay legal community before this incident (he is not a member of LeGaL) or contributed to any of our programs as far as we know, OR Dave Braff, a member of LeGaL for over 20 years, also gay, and a big contributor to LeGaL in more ways than just money and buying a table at our annual dinner/dance."

The answer is LeGaL should not believe anyone. For an organization to take "sides" in the dispute is unacceptable, and highly unethical. The idea that there is a financial interest involved should weigh heavily in favor of LeGaL's silence, not upon "finding" for Mr. Braff. As you should clearly realize, the presence (or activity level) of a gay partner is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a hostile work environment existed in another setting.

LeGaL should support gay and lesbian lawyers in New York, and throughout the profession. To make a public statement based upon personal interests is inappropriate, insulting, and contrary to the mission of the organization. I, along with many of my colleagues, are deeply disappointed.

Anonymous,

What you don't get is that frivolous lawsuits HURT the gay community. At this moment dozens of hiring partners accross the country are having the following debate regarding gay candidates. "He's smart and good but biglaw is hyper-competitive. Most associate don't make it. The risk with this guy is that if he doesn't make it he could go Charney on us. it's not worth the risk, I'll pass."

In light of the damage done to the legal community, it is perfectly appropriate for us to say "this case is bullshit and we're not fighting it.'

S&C has ten gay partners and dozens of openly gay associates. These aren't token amounts. Charney, OTOH, has a very iffy complaint and the way he handled it makes it seem like he was out more to damage people's reputations than to determine his legal rights. His complaint about being staffed under a gay partner is ridiculous.

I am grateful that S&C's gay community has come out and openly supported S&C in this matter. Let's save our battles for when it counts.

Well hey now... Charney isn't buying tables. The firm is. Clearly this guy is loyal to his money trail. He was pretty clear about that. How pathetic.

OMG! Is NO ONE getting the fact that S&C did zip when this kid complained and apparently circled its wagons against him? It's the RETALIATION that is the scariest thing... although I agree the Krauth's comments and Korry's are scary too of course. Thanks all.

a) Its not proven to be a frivolous lawsuit by any means.
b) They should just not comment, even if they think it is. Infighting looks far worse, especially where money is involved.

That's called firm culture Anonymous. It's the real world. Imagine you're running a firm and one of your associates (in whom you have invested incredible trust, time and money; choosing and developing him over dozens of other HYS grads) starts trouble for your firm and your people. That's not a team player and is someone you no longer want as a soldier in your organization. Be realistic. Biglaw is hyper-competitive, it requires not just smarts but unwavering alliegance to the firm. You're handling ultra-important transactions for the most powerful organizations in the world. It's biglaw for ***'s sakes!
Someone who gets bent out of shape and files human resources complaints because someone told him there was poop on a paper, or told him to bend over is just not biglaw material.

And again, the presence of other openly gay folks, even at partner level, is irrelevant.
If there's ONE homophobic a-hole, thats enough for the charges to stick.

"It seemed less like the official position of a prominent gay rights group and more like what you'd expect someone to have printed out on a dot-matrix printer in his basement."

Hilarious!

Look, anyone who's clerked can tell you that NO discrimination/retaliation case is like something out of the movie "Philadelphia." Prejudice can be a lot more subtle than that.

The question is not whether "the firm hates gays." This isn't 1975, and we aren't in Alabama.

The real question is, did a couple of partners attack Charney based on his sexuality, and did he get branded a troublemaker based on his complaints about it and shoved to the side? That is classic retaliation. It's saying, essentially, "We aren't going to rock the boat and risk annoying a profitable partner in M&A to make some fungible associate happy."

If buying a rubber chicken dinner at some event is essentially the equivalent of an insurance policy against employment discrimination actions, I'm a little disgusted.

I also now realize why my old firm shoved dinners like this down our throats ever other week.

Just cause there's a bunch of gay partners in the lit department doesn't mean there aren't a few bad apples in the bunch.

These stretched comments only increase the perception of the gay community as fragile backstabbers and not welcome in high pressure high stress biglaw.

You guys need to learn what the real world is about. You can scream all you want but you won't change biglaw culture. These firms represent multi-national corporations in the most stressful, and sometimes dirty dealings on the planet.

You're doing damage to the gay community, and increasing the perception that gay lawyers are not tough nosed, stress-capable and effective people who are an asset to the practice - but rather whiny troublemakers in whom you should not invest the trust, time and energy to hire and train.

I totally disagree with you! Seems to me that anyone standing up for his/herself in that environment is a sign of great bravery. When you pretty much know your career will be ruined by saying "I will not tolerate this anymore" it is hardly whing to me. We all have our own takes though. I respect others' right to disagree with me. So sad many attacking this Charney kid don't.

How do you know his career was ruined because he said "I will not tolerate this anymore?" How do you know he wasn't one of many associates who just couldn't cut it in biglaw, and who contrived this whole mess as an excuse? As an attempt to recast what happened?

And what exactly isn't he going to take anymore? Someone telling him to bend over and pick up a paper? Someone telling him there's poop on an article? PULEEZE!!! We're all adults and we've heard much worse in life. A mature person responds to such comments with a comeback, not a complaint to HR which he should know would alienate him from the firm.

Do you know how it works to make partner in BigLaw? Politics is a huge part of it. I think his career was done when he complained against some bigshots in his group. That's my guess... I wasn't there. Kinda the same as you are guessing. We are all guessing. We all have the right to do so. For some reason though, there are a lot of peoploe like you on here who cannot simply allow someone to disagree. Let's all disagree and respect the other guy's right to disagree. :)

I understand that you disagree.

So Aaron just should have "taken" gay jokes about bending over and enjoying excrement, and comments about his relationships being "unnatural"? He should have thought up a "comeback," in your view? The retaliation he faced for his complaints was deserved, you say?

Good thing the New York City legislature disagrees with morons such as yourself, and has made gay discrimination illegal.

Note to self: only if you contribute money to a gay organization will they believe your claims of discrimination. Cause we all know only rich gay people get discriminated against.

Yes exactly! He could have responded with one of dozens of smart comebacks. Stop pretending like you live idyllic lives void of any disturbance. Someone that sensitive does not belong in biglaw IMO. Biglaw represents massive corporations in their most stressful and combative transactions and litigation. Someone who gets bent out of shape over a few trivial and stupid comments does not have the constitution for biglaw. Just not a good fit.

Further, someone who works in biglaw, and who wants to handle such important affairs should be worldly enough and have the judgment to predict retaliation. What did you expect? That Krautheimer would just resign? Are you that naive? He wouldn't. And the firm would look very negatively upon such treacherous actions as an HR complaint over a few trivial comments.

What do you think biglaw lawyers do? Pick daisies all day? They're representing corporations accused of terrible things. They're representing corporations who are concerned about being ripped off in a merger deal by another group of super-sharks. You want to see this level of responsibility given to someone who can't even take a comment about poop? Are you kidding?

So, anonWH, what if Krautheimer called a black employee the n-word? What would be the appropriate response in the hardcore "biglaw" world?

By the way, are you actually a lawyer?

I'm really annoyed that I'm the only realistic gay poster here. I've been trying to educate you naive fools for the last four days and you still make the same unrealistic la-la land comebacks.

Whatever. Enjoy creating a perception of the gay community as a bunch of untrustworthy, incompetent, immature whiners who no serious firm should trust.

I hope David Lat gives the realistic POV some coverage but I doubt he will. Either way I've really had enough and this is my last post.

One last note since I didn't see the prior question. If I wasn't clear, that black employee would be retaliated against and have his career destroyed if he went to HR. That black poster is in a shitty spot. HELLO! SO ARE BILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS PERFECT.

I would advise that black employee to make a comeback and try to get allies in the group so that he can have enough political influence to survive the other dude's racism. Note that Charney was even teamed up with a gay partner so that he would have no reason to feel everyone in the firm hated him because he was gay.

And what Krautheimer allegedly said wasn't anywhere near as bad as calling someone a n*gger. Had a gay person said those things Charney would have probably laughed. JUST PUHLEEZE re: the offensiveness of the comments.

This is really my last post, but people who run to HR will not make in biglaw.

I'm really getting out of my mind at the lack of realism, lack of maturity and lack of judgment from my gay friends on this board. I really need to go. I can't spend every day on here. I won't respond to any other posts.

And no offense to Charney as a person. I think he's just a sensitive and unrealistically idealistic guy who desperately needed some real world advice and unfortunately didn't get it. Now he's in a pile of shit.

I don't want you guys to be so naive. I want you to be a firm partner, not a plaintiff.

Good luck building the gay community. As a closeted homosexual I really enjoyed delving into gay issues the past few days.

SO anything goes in BigLaw, no matter what type of practice group you are in, b/c some cases a firm takes on mean the client did something really bad? Also, if you are a victim of disctimination and retaliation you should suck it up and be witty and try to make friends? WRONG. What a dope that persistent "last post" poster was. LOL

The opines of a closeted homosexual mean zip to me. When you come out of the closet like brave people do all the time, and have to deal with reality... we'll talk.

"Further, someone who works in biglaw, and who wants to handle such important affairs should be worldly enough and have the judgment to predict retaliation."

So if the retaliation was predictable, it's legal?

What did you expect? That Krautheimer would just resign? Are you that naive? He wouldn't. And the firm would look very negatively upon such treacherous actions as an HR complaint over a few trivial comments.

Treacherous???? Are you serious? You must be a partner at a Biglaw firm - nobody else would be so out of touch with reality (and so out of touch with the normal rules of human conduct that operate in society) as to think that a complaint to HR about a partner (or about anything else) could be called "treacherous."

Nobody expected Krautheimer to resign; however, if the firm respected its obligations under the law, it wouldn't have retaliated against Charney, and it certainly could have taken Krautheimer aside and told him to knock it off.

And if you aren't a partner already, you're most likely a biglaw associate who is so goddamned impressed with himself for being in that position that he can make excuses for any sort of obnoxious and offensive behavior because you've deluded yourself into thinking that this kind of behavior is necessary to the work you do. With that attitude, you'll probably make partner.

Retaliation claims have won the plaintiffs millions and millions of dollars.

Retaliating against people who make complaints about discrimination is illegal. And for good reason.

http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1603157205&page_url=%2f%2fwww.boardmember.com%2fissues%2farchive.pl%3farticle_id%3d12499&page_last_updated=6%2f27%2f2006+6%3a52%3a02+PM&firstName=Alexandra&lastName=Korry

For D. Lat

As a young(er) gay 5th year associate in a BIGLAW firm, I can identify with Aaron Charney. More than anything, I am saddened by what he is having to go through, by no choice of his own. Some of you may argue that it was his choice to take this public, but in my estimation, he had no alternative coming from such uneven position against a powerful force like S&C. To the doubters, I would ask that you put yourself in his position, whether you are a female, an ethnic or religious minority, or maybe even a white, hetero male. What would you have done? I asked myself that often and concluded that my breaking point would have been the altered Kodak reviews Aaron endured. I might have been able to brush off the homophobic comments (was hardened to those in my fraternity)...but when your work performance is undermined as a result of speaking up about harassment, I think you too would react strongly. Finally, as a gay attorney, I am most angry at LeGal for not at least taking a neutral stance. It is unconscionable that they would undermine the credibility of Aaron Charney's case to remain in favor of a firm that allegedly enabled and covered up discrimination in the workplace. Aaron, if you're reading this, chin up...you have more support than you know.

What I want to know is when will somebody form the Aaron Charney Legal Defense Fund?

We need to speak out more in support of our colleagues. Aaron Charney deserves the benefit of the doubt, and he deserves our admiration for taking on a behemoth employer. He has put his career at stake, and it is extremely distressing that LeGal has fed him to the lions by heaping praise on S&C without knowing the pertinent facts. S&C may have persuaded LeGal in some regards, but they are a gay rights organization and tehy should have maintain neutrality, at the least, if not rallied to Charney's side. I don't care that previous relationship existed between S&C and its gay partners and LeGal. LeGal should be ashamed of itself for its incredibly poor exercise of judgment.

I am ready to join The Aaron Charney Legal Defense Fund. If anyone is serious about helping out, please post here, or on my blog, www.lavisoloway.blogspot.com

Thanks, and most of all good luck, Aaron.

Well let's hope that really is the end of anonWH's ridiculous bullshit.

Maybe anonWH can use his free time and around $10K of therapy to get over his own closet issues. After he's shown enough spine to come out, maybe he'll have something to add to a discussion of the case, because lectures on the "gay community" from a pathetic self-loather are an offensive, ignorant and most of all annoying distraction.

I don't know Aaron Charney or any of the relevant partners at Sullivan and I don't know what really happened. As an openly gay midlevel at a comparable firm who has never experienced even a hint of discrimination, though, I can say that I would be pretty upset if partners started telling me to spend less time with a colleague or altered my reviews to indicate poor performance.

My intital impression is that it's easier for me to believe that there are a couple of asshole partners who crossed a line and the partnership decided to circle the wagons, over the idea that somebody with Charney's education and professional background is paranoid or just decided to make this up.

I say we should let this play out. More is sure to come out, so we'll see what happens and what we believe when the dust has settled.

Below is an email exchange I had today with Jack Scheich after I sent an email to the LeGal address (le_gal@earthlink.net). I actually cannot believe that the organization is permitting him to send out emails like this. It's unbelievable.

To: le_gal@earthlink.net
From: [redacted]
Date: January 22, 2007
Subject: LeGal's Comments on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a gay 3L at Fordham Law School who will be joining the firm Davis Polk & Wardwell in the fall. I am writing to express my outrage over recent comments made by John Scheich, your organization's first vice president, reprinted on Abovethelaw.com (see http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/charney_v_sullivan_cromwell_th_2.php#more).

It is simply inconceivable to me that LeGal would, at this stage, publicly come out in support of Sullivan & Cromwell ("S&C"). All we know right now is that Mr. Charney, a gay associate at S&C, claims he was harassed and retaliated against because of his sexual orientation, and that S&C vehemently denies any such harassment or retaliation. While it is true that there are a number of gay partners at S&C who have publicly stated their support for the firm, that fact alone does not mean that other partners at S&C did not discriminate against Mr. Charney. Indeed, the mere fact that there are gay partners at S&C does not mean that the firm is not homophobic, or that it did not harass one of its gay associates. We simply do not know at this stage, which is why the prudent course would be to wait and see.

More troubling about Mr. Scheich's comments, however, was the fact that he mentioned that S&C purchases a table at LeGal's annual benefit. This comment had the effect of making it appear as if LeGal had some sort of financial obligation to support S&C. Sending that message that firms can avoid public condemnation of their actions toward their gay employees by simply purchasing a table at a benefit would be a regrettable precedent to set.

I believe it is imperative for your organization to immediately and unequivocally repudiate Mr. Scheich's comments and issue a statement in which you announce your intention to withhold judgment until more facts are known. You are in serious danger of losing the respect and support of the entire gay legal community in New York City -- the very community you claim to serve.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

To: [redacted]
From: [redacted]
Date: January 22, 2007
Subject: Re: LeGal's Comments on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell

The comment about the table at the dinner was descriptive to show the firm's support for LeGaL and the work we do.

We have received several letters from law students who have never been a part of a BAR ASSN. I think it imperative to join a Bar Assn of your choice to see how it works from within. We would welcome your joining LeGaL.

S&C has done and continues to do pro bono work for LeGaL and the gay community, perhaps you did not know that. You are working with limited facts.

At the very heart of S&C is an organization clearly committed to overcoming homophobia, and assisting gay lawyers in their careers.

You only know the little you read in a publication known as ABOVE THE LAW. Tell me, as a future lawyer, who amongst us is above the law?

S&C has spent endless hours and days and years and money in support of LeGaL and the gay legal community. Perhaps you didn't know that before you became outraged. You too need to gather all the facts before commenting.

Thank you for writing.

Jack Scheich

I think anonWH raises an interesting point here: "What do you think biglaw lawyers do? Pick daisies all day? They're representing corporations accused of terrible things. They're representing corporations who are concerned about being ripped off in a merger deal by another group of super-sharks. You want to see this level of responsibility given to someone who can't even take a comment about poop? Are you kidding?"

Did Charney have what it takes to handle biglaw responsibility?

Jack Scheich states that the letter writers criticizing LeGal should become members of the organization "to see how it works from within." I disagree. Law students look to us (gay attorneys) to see what the future holds. The "gay bar association," which is essentially what LeGal is, has failed these would be lawyers and its entire membership by elevating S&C over the plaintiff because "S&C as spent endless hours and days and years and money in support of LeGal and the gay legal community." We know that. The correct response is: SO WHAT? That does not address Aaron Charney's allegations which if true only show that we cannot never be TOO vigilant about homophobia. If Aaron Charney's complaint is true, Sheich should be leading the charge against S&C. I wonder what his position is (since he never states it) if in fact every word of the complaint is true? LeGal is a community organization. It owes responsility to me (a member) and to all future gay attorneys (whether they join, donate money, do neither or both), perhaps especially those who are currently in law school closely observing this mess with great distress. LeGal, please retract your statements.

Sorry. I did have one quote from Jack Scheich in an email to me that does address what his position would be in the event Aaron Charney's claims were true. Well, sort of:

For all of those reasons, I think it is fairly obvious that S&C as a law firm does not discriminate. Now the $64,000 question is: did one isolated partner discriminate? We will never know that and if he/she did I'm sure the situation was or will be corrected.

I'm afraid that for a gay civil rights organization representing attorneys to say "I'm sure it will be corrected" does not cut it, to put it mildly.

To be fair to Jack Scheich, I'll post the bulk of what he wrote to me in a follow up email. It addresses the possibility of Aaron Charney's claim being true, and includes what I consider the most inappropriate rationale put forward so far for LeGal's pro-S&C comment to ABC News (that LeGal wanted to raise its profile).
Please do not confuse a comment made to a reporter as full and unbridled support for S&C. It just seems , on balance, at this moment in time, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Dave Braff and S&C. If we find something to the contrary we will more vigorous in our support of the plaintiff.

More vigorous? More than what? So far the only vigor has been one-sided, by Scheich's own admission ("the benefit of the doubt should be given to Dave Braff and S&C").
Let me explain the dilemma LeGaL finds itself.
We are constantly struggling at LeGaL to become better known and more respected in the Legal community, amongst the Judiciary, and City Council etc. Accordingly it is imperative that when the media seeks us out, it is important that we make comment, as we did in the Court of Appeals decision recently on gay marriage. People see we are part of the respected legal community just by speaking out.LeGal is trying to become better known? LeGal wants "people" to "see we are part of the respected legal community just by speaking out," but then proceeds to choose its words injudiciously. LeGal can only earn its place in the "respected legal community" by exercising extreme prudence. Instead, it is clear that many now see LeGal in the opposite way, i.e. as inexperienced and unsophisticated. You don't see Lambda Legal Defense coming out swinging with public statements supporting S&C, even though they surely have had some positive experiences with that firm. Or maybe Lambda doesn't need the media exposure?
So I had to comment. Of course, I could have said a very uninteresting thing like , let's wait and see how the facts turn out. Or it's too early to know what actually happened. Those comments probably would bot [sic] have been printed.

So I tippy toed through the issue as gingerly as I could, but made it interesting enough and accurate enough to reach print.

Mr. Charney’s complaint states that Ms. Korry said she “believed” Charney and Grinberg “were engaged in an unnatural relationship”. Another blogger suggested that she was referring to the fact that Charney was always in Grinberg’s office. Since these two seemed to have been assigned on the same matters, I don’t know why that would give rise to gossip or other speculation about the nature of this “relationship”. It seems to me that it is “unnatural” to have a partner, i.e., Ms. Korry, work from her home on a regular basis. Indeed, were her clients billed at her regular rate or at her “at home” rate? I also don’t think the clients should bear the costs of the car service used to deliver papers to her at home since I am sure her clients expect her to work from the office.
S&C should settle this and settle it quickly. If I were Goldman and other clients, I would start looking for other law firms to service my work.

Posted also blogs.WSJ.law

" it is “unnatural” to have a partner, i.e., Ms. Korry, work from her home on a regular basis"

This is sexist against women, who need flexibility to balance home and work responsibilities.

I am a woman! My point is that clients should not be billed at the same rate for "at home" work. I come into the office everyday and know there is a difference in my ability to concentrate here as compared to "at home". I need the personal interaction of my associates to be at peak performance. That's what clients pay for. If someone needs "flex time", fine. Just don't charge the clients for it! Also, what about the car service for home delivery.

Um, if the purpose of the statement was to "become better known and more respected in the Legal community," I think it's certainly backfiring with respect to the latter. Regardless of the merits of the case, he's basically saying that with respect to LeGaL's support, money talks, and that law students oughtn't deign to challenge LeGaL's public statements unless they've paid membership dues. I am hard pressed to come up with more condescending statements made by an official on behalf of his organization. As a soon-to-be-admitted-member-of-the-bar, I had considered joining. Not anymore. And more importantly, I am far less inclined to take seriously any subsequent statements by the organization.

"MEOW!!! Gays get into the BEST catfights." That is HILARIOUS hahaha!!!! I love it I'm eating this up like candy....

From Jack Scheich:
"So I tippy toed through the issue as gingerly as I could, but made it interesting enough and accurate enough to reach print."

That's tip toeing? It seems to me he took a side -- the side that buys tables at their benefits and does pro-bono on other legal issues. This is not fair! This is a very disappointing response.

anonHW, please turn in your gay card

I, for one, find it interesting that Mr. Scheich does not list his association (First Vice President) with LeGal on his firm's website (a firm for which he is a named partner). It's absence is quite notable given the long list of other Professional Associations and Memberships:

Queens County Bar Association
Member

Nassau County Bar Association
Member

American Bar Association
Member

John Marshall Lawyers Association, 1992 - Present
President, Director

Criminal Courts Bar Association of Queens County
Member

New York State Bar Association
Member

New York State Trial Lawyers Association
Member

New York State Supreme Court, Queens County, 1972 - 1990
Member, Assigned Counsel Panel

Civil Court of City of New York, 1981 - 1990
Chairman, Arbitration Panel

Ra-Li Brokerage Corporation, 1975 - Present
Vice President, Board of Directors

Is it possible that Mr. Scheich does not want it known on his firm's website that he is gay?

Not to beat a dead horse, but when it comes to LeGal I don't think the best route is to refrain from joining. On the contrary, I invite new attorneys to become part of this important organization and make sure this does not happen again. Our profession can make an immeasurable contribution to our community, but we cannot perfect ourselves and promote the best that is within our profession by turning our back on such institutions. LeGal has done tremendous good, and despite this misstep, I hope it remains a viable organization. Having said that, I encourage all law students and lawyers reading in the "blawgosphere" to write letters to LeGal and request that these statements in support of S&C be retracted immediately.

LeGal needs to retract their ill considered comments immediately. I wonder who authorized Jack Scheich to put forth the position that he did. The eMailed responses to various concerned parties are also damaging to LeGal and I wonder if the Board:

Hon. Arlene P. Bluth
R. Brent English, Esq.
Michele Kahn, Esq.
Thomas Maligno, Esq.
Frank Nervo, Esq.
Jaime Piazza

has been made aware of his remarks.

http://lavisoloway.blogspot.com/2007/01/breaking-news-legal-disavows-prior.html

Breaking News: LeGal Disavows Prior Statements re Aaron Charney vs Sullivan & Cromwell
January 23, 2007, 5pm

As a law association of the LGBT community, our organization has followed news of the recent discrimination lawsuit filed against the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell by Aaron Brett Charney. Our knowledge of the case is of course limited to what is communicated in the media - both online and in print - and in public court filings As a result, none of us are capable of determining, at this stage, what actually transpired.

We do know, however, that Mr. Charney's allegations of discrimination are quite serious. Given the gravity of the allegations and the early stage of legal proceedings, we sincerely regret that an officer of our organization has been quoted as essentially prejudging the merits of the
lawsuit and the veracity of Mr. Charney, and that the officer also made subsequent comments. That was wrong - plain and simple. Since we believe the initial comments were wrong, we also believe any subsequent attempt to justify the initial comments were also wrong.

As lawyers, we are especially mindful of the dangers of prematurely judging evidence and of trying a case in the press. If Mr. Charney has suffered discrimination because of his sexual orientation (or for any other reason), he is entitled to not only his day in court but also the full
support of the LGBT community and others who care about basic civil rights.

We are deeply sorry that an officer of our organization, which aims in part to eliminate discrimination and to encourage LGBT individuals to choose law as a career, made public comments dismissive of Mr. Charney's claims. The views expressed by that officer do not represent the views of our Board, nor, we suspect, the views of our members. This statement is being released within 24 hours of our learning of the comments.

While it is true that Sullivan & Cromwell, as well as many other law firms, have been supporters of our organization, that fact does not bear on the crucial question of what actually transpired between Mr. Charney and his colleagues and superiors at the firm. The courtroom is the proper forum for such facts to be uncovered.

To all those who rightfully found the comments at issue troubling or even dangerous, we offer again our apologies.

posted by Lavi at 9:50 AM PERMALINK 0 comments

Lavi,

Thanks for posting-though this definitely bears more wide-spread publicity. And thanks for your efforts to get LeGal to openly acknowledge the impropriety of Scheich's comments.