Is H. Rodgin Cohen ‘The Queen’?
We haven’t seen as many films this year as we usually do. But one of our favorites, either our #1 or #2 pick for the year, is The Queen (directed, and brilliantly so, by Stephen Frears).
Here’s a decent plot summary:
In late August 1997, just as Prime Minister Tony Blair was moving into 10 Downing Street, Princess Diana died in a Paris car wreck. England went into traumatized mourning deeper than anyone could have predicted, while the royal family — Diana’s estranged former inlaws — offered no public reaction at all.As resentment toward the royal cold shoulder built into a monarchical crisis of public opinion, young Mr. Blair [attempts to intervene] with the Queen, [urging] the House of Windsor [to make] a public demonstration of something like humanity.
But Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) resists Blair’s call for a more public show of empathy. She is a deeply traditional woman, and as far as she’s concerned, Diana’s death is a “private matter” — since Diana, divorced from Prince Charles some time ago, was no longer a “royal” or “HRH” at the time of her death.
The Queen’s commitment to tradition makes her tone deaf on the public relations front. She does not know how to navigate the complex and challenging world of the modern mass media. The Queen fails to see the crisis in confidence that is looming — a crisis that threatens the institution of the monarchy, which she loves above all.
What we must now ask is:
Is H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Biglaw version of “The Queen”?
Our reflections on this question, after the jump.
Ever since the filing of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the lurid lawsuit filed by S&C associate Aaron Charney against his (probably soon-to-be former) employer, the firm has been going through a public relations crisis. It has been portrayed, in media both old and new, as prejudiced against gays. In a profession that boasts many talented members who are openly gay, this is not a good thing.
Even if one rejects the claims of anti-gay bias, S&C certainly has been depicted as a firm that harbors a disturbingly high number of raging a**holes. If even half of Charney’s allegations are true, the firm is stocked with nightmare partners who treat both gay and straight associates with gross disrespect.
(Check out this article for a good discussion of the PR damage done to S&C.)
And yet H. Rodgin Cohen, like the Queen, has been silent for almost the entire time. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, he issued a brief email statement on behalf of the firm, which we published in these pages. But other than that — and an attempt to cozy up to the Wall Street Journal that actually may have backfired — Cohen and S&C have maintained their stony silence.
In contrast, plaintiff Charney has been everywhere. He has given television and print interviews. He regularly communicates with us and other bloggers. If this is a public relations war, then Aaron Charney is on a blitzkrieg. Indeed, he may even be reaching the point of overexposure.
Like the Queen, Rodge Cohen is committed to tradition and propriety. He may regard a PR battle as beneath the dignity of a distinguished firm like Sullivan & Cromwell, and inappropriate for a leading light of the profession such as himself. He probably views trying a case “in the court of public opinion” as grossly improper, even unethical.
But one has to wonder, as one did with respect to the Queen (whose commitment to tradition ultimately endangered the institution that she loved more than anything):
1. Is the silence of Sullivan & Cromwell, and in particular, H. Rodgin Cohen, in the best interests of the firm?2. Even if it would be improper to be as aggressive as Aaron Charney in courting public opinion, are there subtle steps the firm can take to protect its reputation, without going too far (or stooping too low)?
3. Even if the firm itself doesn’t want to cross swords with Charney in the newspaper and blog pages, can they operate through proxies to ameliorate the reputational damage?
4. Are there any allies whom the firm can summon to its defense — allies who are hopefully more effective, or at least less foolish-looking, than Jack Scheich of LeGal?
Just some food for thought, on this Wednesday night in late January.
The Queen [IMDb]
When blogging casts an unflattering light [Globe & Mail]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
(36) 
Comments
you know it's a slow day when the only thing david lat has to report is the absence of something to report...
Rodge has better things to do than respond to this media-whore douche.
love the pic!
Only a gossip blogger would suggest that S&C stands to lose by silence. Not only is attacking the plaintiff unseemly, beneath the dignity of the profession, and possibly unethical, but any statement made without fully investigating the allegations could come back to haunt S&C in the lawsuit.
You mean like when they "categorically denied" everything in Charney's compaint?
I mean, how can you "categorically deny" everything? What if a jury finds one thing true? That comes back to haunt you, right?
I'm confused. Are the last 3 commenters saying: (1) that the "categorical denial" was improper b/c their investigation isn't done yet, (2) that they never should have made a categorical denial b/c even that was too much, or (3) that the categorical denial DOES constitute their media strategy?
S&C's handling of Charney and Stefanie Wheeler's Goldman mess-up may not reflect a lack of PR savvy, but they do raise honest and serious questions about the judgment of individual lawyers, but not necessarily the firm as a whole. But what makes it even worse for S&C is the snarky and rude comments posted on this blog and others by obvious S&C associates. Like above, for example, "Rodge has better things to do than respond to this media-whore douche." That is classic S&C assocaiate-speak, and trust me, I was there. These silly S&C assocaites think they are defending their firm and their chairman's honor, but they just end up looking like a bunch of jerks. To say the Rodge (and management) is too busy advising a client to care what associates at S&C are saying or doing is EXACTLY the problem that lead to the Charney situation. The firm shot itself in the foot, and thiese snarky punk assocaites are making it worse with their postings here.
I think Latham is like The Queen. We all want to hear from LW, but no word yet... the whole world is waiting for you!
I think Latham is like The Queen. We all want to hear from LW, but no word yet... the whole world is waiting for you!
Only a gossip blogger would suggest that S&C stands to lose by silence. Not only is attacking the plaintiff unseemly, beneath the dignity of the profession, and possibly unethical, but any statement made without fully investigating the allegations could come back to haunt S&C in the lawsuit.
Rodgin? What "H" name is so bad that he prefers to be known as Rodgin?
I have it on good authority that Rodgin was pretty angry the night before the NY Times article ran.
Rodgin expressed an emotion?
Make no mistake - S&C is in an uproar, but only internally. They are taking care of things in their own way. Those of us who were there and have seen the way they operate know that there are things being done to clean up the mess but they are done as far away from the spotlight as possible. Don't be surprised if a bunch of M&A partners end up working out of the Paris office soon.
For one, 9:31, sending partners to the Paris office does not go unnoticed in this day and age.
Second, what S&C needs is to stop hiring pr*cks and *ssholes. Otherwise, with all of the bad press scaring away the good people, only people who dont mind *ssholes (aka, *ssholes) will apply.
Third, no associate is at S&C for anything other than the pot of gold that might be at the end of the rainbow if they make partner. Nobody there ever says on this blodgor others that they are happy at S&C (try to find it). Instead we hear "I work with really smart people and get amazing training". That is a fallacy. People who are really smart are smart enough to know that nobody benefits if you are an *sshole to work with. I mean really, how smart can we really call someone who behaves that way? And you need to be at least in the sixth or seventh year to have any chance to get even a whiff of the first chair in a meaningful deposition in a big case. The S&C Enron team had at least twelve lawyers on it, only four of whom were partners.
Finally, the bottom line is that S&C is about a generation away from clearing out all of the pr*cks. There are simply too many of them. And "the way they operate" on internal and employee relations matters has created a massive track record of ineptitude, so I look forward to the drama unfolding.
Does Alexandra Korry speak French?
Of course, there's really no point in doing anything when your critics are so smart that they don't any evidence at all to convince them that every word of some narcissistic post-closet loon's allegations are true.
I have to wonder about someone spouting vitriol on this issue at 3:37am. That would be seriously pathtic. Maybe someone did it on the west coast after Midnight (still kind of sad) and it shos as 3:37am? Another possibility is maybe it is someone is one of those infamous foreign offices people get sent to? That would mean maybe someone sitting in Europe did it around 9am'ish.
Whoever you are at 10:03, you have obviously never been there. S&C does have extraordinarily smart partners. Those of us who have been there find the allegations of discrimination to be absurd. The partners there really don't care about whether you are a homosexual, heterosexual, bi or otherwise. The prevailing theme at S&C is that the partners just don't care about you at all. Period, end of story. Like it or not, they are smart in the sense that this business model has worked for them extraordinarily well for decades. Aaron Charney is not changing that. This jacka$$ just couldn't take the heat, and managed to characterize the general abuse one receives there as sexual discrimination. He will probably be paid off with some small amount of money three years from now, and that's the last we will hear of Mr. Charney.
When "general abuse one receives there" is just thought of as a normal thing - that really is a sad statement for the legal profession. Oh well.
The comments here have veered considerably from Lat's original topic, which I think is an interesting one. With my year of experience in the media relations world, I don't know everything, but it is pretty clear what S&C's PR strategy is. National newspapers, networks and magazines will pay only a perfunctory glance at lawsuits like these. They will cover the filing of the complaint, but then stop there. S&C knows this. No large/important media organ is going to cover this again unless something VERY newsworthy happens (e.g. details leaked of a confidential settlement; partners being fired, etc).
As Lat probably knows as well, S&C is certainly hard at work revising their Firm's policy guide with respect to harassment, discrimination, etc., as well as creating some sort of subtle marketing campaign (with assuredly exploitative use of S&C's gay partners and associates) to "assure" law students and clients that this is an isolated incident and the firm is undoubtedly inclusive and a safe place for everyone. These things happen behind the scenes and will certainly not be covered by the mainstream media.
Unfortunately for this blog, all of these developments will not be visible to associates at S&C and will certainly not be leaked by S&C's Partners or C-level officers. Sad.
I don't know. Maybe you are right but then again - if we suddenly see a whole lot of negative stuff about Charney popping up now in themedia... it would possibly just be the firm's PR boys and gals doing their thing. They do have unlimited resources and connections. Let's see what happens.
What S&C should realize, though, is that law students and young lawyers read ATL, xoxohth, Infirmation, etc. They may read them more avidly than many MSM sources.
Even if these websites aren't as highbrow as the NYT or WSJ, they have readers that S&C might be interested in - potential future summer associates or lateral hires (although I don't know how much lateral hiring S&C does - relatively little I think).
So how S&C comes across in cyberspace is not completely insignificant.
FWIW - I understand that S&C has done a tremendous amt. of lateral hiring to fill their ranks b/c of the high attrition it has had.
10:03 here.
I was at S&C. (The relatively new associates' lounge in on 26 (same floor as the cafeteria and the little room where the Rodge lunches are held), and when you walk in to this windowless room there is a plasma TV to the right and snakcs and drinks in the back left. Need more? Library is on 30 and faces the Statue of Liberty. Main reception area moved from 27 to 37. Gym is on L2, with a computer to sign in on the desk immediately to the right when you walk in. Small refrigerator on the left when you walk in. A room of treadmills and bikes are in front of three TVs, which are in front of the locker rooms. Men's on the left, women's on the right. There is a fourth TV near the dumbbells. All training is also on L2. Mr. Braff sits near Mr. Warden.)
But, 9:44, you have proven my point. You don't say that you are happy. And you don't say thet your colleagues are either. And you admit that "The prevailing theme at S&C is that the partners just don't care about you at all." The business success is obvious, but truly smart people (not just those with obvious legal talent) are self aware and realize that a poisonous working environment is ultimately bad for business. Have you even considred the massive financial losses caused by all of the associate departures? There are real costs associated with training people for a few years and then having to replace them (via laterals or otherwise). But the biggest long term detriment to the firm is that good, kind people leave.
Ok, I stand corrected. You have obviously been there.
I disagree with you though. What you are looking at is the cost side of the equation. What S&C management looks at is the revenue side. And you just can't do those deals within the timeframe that the clients expect them to be done with a bunch of "good, kind" people. The business model relies on people being willling to do literally whatever it takes for the client. Most people, even very good lawyers, are not always willing to do whatever it takes (good, kind people generally have other priorities, e.g. being good and kind to your family, friends, collegues, etc.). The time there as an associate is merely a test of whether you are one of the people that is willing to do whatever it takes. If you are not, you will end up leaving at some point to a kinder, more gentle place.
I hear what you are saying, but cannot totally agree. Being at S&C is more than a test of being willing to do whatever it takes for the client. It is being willing to do whatever it takes for the client with a jerk screaming at you while you do it.
Mind you, not every partner at S&C is a jerk, but let's look at an example. It is 8:00 on a Friday night and the deal is set to close Monday. You need to turn the documents again by 9:00 Saturday morning. You say to a partner "you might recall that I mentioned last week that my mom and brother are in town for the weekend. I know we have a lot to do, but I promised them that I would at least make dinner tonight."
The RARE S&C partner: "Of course, go to dinner. I will work on the documents for the next few hours. Can you either pick them up again at midnight or maybe at 6:00 in the morning? And please apologize to your family. I and the client appreciate all of your hard work on this."
MOST S&C partners: "I don't give a f*ck! You think I am going to sit here and work while you run home to mommy? You are screwing me and screwing the client. Who do you think you are?"
The difference between a kind person and a jerk is that the kind person takes the three extra seconds to compose themselves before responding. The kind person says thank you. The kind person realizes that his poop stinks (roll the Eric K. jokes) too and that everyone relationship with their friends and family is deserving of equal consideration."
As an aside, an irony here (given that the Charney case started all of this talk) is that the kindest, most sincere, classy and humane people I met (but, unrotunately never really worked much with) at S&C are gay: David Braff, Steven Holley, Stacey Freedman and Brad Smith. There are all also great lawyers (litigators) who are worthy of respect and admiration. It is too bad the the General Practice (corporate) side doesn't have more people like them.
1) The only valid points to be made with regard to this case are those supporting Aaron.
2) Aaron is an excellent lawyer and a courageous man and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.
3) People should reserve all judgments about this case other than that Aaron's case is legitimate and that these acts are discriminatory and terminable offenses.
4) Arguments in favor of Aaron's position are bolstered when the poster demonstrates first-hand knowledge of S&C, especially indications that the person was employed there, as having worked there gives supporters of Aaron's position absolute moral authority.
5) Arguments dismissive of Aaron's claims by people with first hand knowledge of the events and individuals described in the complaint are neither valid nor reliable based on their blind loyalty to S&C.
6) At least 40% percent of all online postings relating to the case must be made by Aaron himself.
7) Misogynistic faux-appreciation of difficult women is not sexist when those engaging in it are homosexual men.
8) Leaking of year old documents relating to S&C retention initiatives to the WSJ blog and any simar leaks made by Aaron in the future are courageous acts of whistleblowing by an oppressed minority speaking truth to power. S&C's response to any such leaking is a failed attempt at spin control by old white men who just don't get it.
9) Ridiculing people who were unnecessarily named in Aaron's complaint and making inquiries about their private lives is a courageous act supportive of all our liberties.
10) Hopelessly nerdy people are funny when they behave like 13 year old girls.
With these ground rules in place, let the debate continue!
Based on 1:03, it looks like maybe PR people post on here too.
Thanks, Aaron. How's your vacation going?
Oh yah right. LOL
I AM ONE OF THE PROUD AMD THE FEW WHO ACTUALLY LOVED S&C. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY OF US OUT THERE, BUT WE (LIKE EVERY OTHER ANNOYING BIGLAW ASSOCIATE) LOVE, LOVE, LOVE TO BITCH ABOUT OUR HORRIBLE LIVES. I REALLY LIKED THE PEOPLE, THE PARTNERS, THE WORK, THE CULTURE. I LOVED IT. MANY PEOPLE SIMPLY CANNOT HANDLE THE WORK.
TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, CHARNEY WAS ONE OF THEM
Are you the one writing all the pro-firm stuff across the blogs at approx. the same time? I mean, who else could be up at 1:12 am writing into blogs but an overworked associate or partner, right?
Aaron,
Why are you getting up at 7:36 to check what anonymous blog posters are saying about you? This is your chance to sleep in and enjoy the rest. 3+ years of getting Gera his coffee must have been pretty tiring.
Zzzzzzzzzzz