Good stuff Lat.

Korry wrote for the Harvard Crimson.

Lat,

Could you explain why you LOVE people like this (i.e., lunatics and terrors) so much? And given that love, why are you a blogger now and not still at WLRK? It's really baffling.

to follow up on 12:32

Haiku
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Haiku (disambiguation).
Haiku (俳句, ?) listen (help·info) is a mode of Japanese poetry, the late 19th century revision by Masaoka Shiki of the older hokku (発句, hokku?), the opening verse of a linked verse form, haikai no renga. The traditional hokku consisted of a pattern of approximately 5, 7, 5 on. The Japanese word on, meaning "sound", corresponds to a mora, a phonetic unit similar but not identical to the syllable of a language such as English. (The words onji, ("sound symbol") or moji (character symbol) are also sometimes used.) A haiku contains a special season word (the kigo) representative of the season in which the renga is set, or a reference to the natural world.

At least she's a Dem.

I think that I am about through with this blog. While I enjoy the content, there really isn't enough variety. The "regular features" - Wedding Watch, Legal lairs, revolving chairs - are really only interesting if I personally know the people involved. The ongoing stories amount to exactly three: charney, shanetta, and associate raises, all of which have been overdone.

Looking over at howappealing, I see several stories the might merit mention or followup. For instance, Harriet Miers apparently got a USA fired so she could put in one of her pals. Also, newly confirmed 9th Circuit Judge Randy Smith is a bawling crybaby about leaving the icky state bench.

I'm sorry, but this blog just isn't reaching its potential

I want more Charney and Shanetta stories.

Personally, I think this site hit its stride when it began focusing on Charney, Shanetta and salaries and stopped with the heavyhanded policy issues and random celebrity bits. ATL, you've become exactly what I always hoped you would be.

1:24: If you don't like what Lat covers, don't read this site. It's that simple.

I'm sick of people who want to turn this site into the New York Times. Helllllllooooo, this is an online gossip column, not the goddamn New York Times.

Lat,

You used to work at Wachtell? What was that like?

Hey Anonymous, posting on February 16, 2007 01:24 PM

Good riddance. Grow up or go away, please.

Korry's kids go to Dalton. She is not on the Board. If she were on the Board, I would yank my kids out of the school, considering how she treated my husband. She should be fired and her clients should start requesting detailed expense reports from her, so they can see the thousands of unneccessary dollars they spent so she could "work from home" FULL TIME.

This woman must be mortifed right now.

how mortified can one actually be when anonymous babies denigrate you on a crappy website good for unrestrained cattiness and little else?

If you check her bio, you'll see she had no more than two years of full time work experience before law school (MA in 1981; JD in 1986). This means that her "stints" in journalism and commercial banking were pretty short.

Really like the site

1:24 PM: Then go read How Appealing. Why be so self-important as to tell the world about your blog reading habits?

If you want to offer Lat constructive criticism, you should just email him.

(How Appealing doesn't have enough 'tude for me. But that's just me. I won't waste more time telling the world about what blogs I like or don't like.)

sure S&C is a tough place full of tough people of all types - if you don't like it don't go. or better yet, leave. Or do a few months of good old USMC boot camp and learn about working under actual tough conditions where your life is at stake for 10% of what a 1st year earns at S&C. I've done both and the alleged horror show is actually rather benign and comical. Shrill self impressed young partners are really fairly weak little creatures - most would surrender in 10 seconds or less in a real fire fight. Reminds me of quality time in Kuwait in GW I. Semper Fi and please get a hair cut.

Will sites like this force nightmare partners to change their ways? If abusive partners know that their mistreatment of lowly associates will be broadcast for the entire world to see (and ... gasp ... even clients), will this have any effect?

Yeah, can Lat do something along the lines of the "hotties" feature for the worst partners at BigLaw. Complete with horror stories of course. I think one of the Hill newspapers still does something like that for the worst Members of Congress. Stories of that little troll from Maryland Sen. Mikulski throwing phones at her staff.

Will she send in an open letter in her defense? Will any of her partners send in a defense? We will just wait and see......

Anonymous veteran:

Get motherfucking real!! Your post made my laugh hysterically, not at the point you made, but at your self-righteousness.

OBVIOUSLY there are worse things in life than being paid six figures to work at one of the most prestigious law firms in the world. But that's not what this website is about. Everyone here would agree that working at S&C is better than being in Iraq or the Sudan. But it's all relative. And your comment is, therefore, motherfucking stupid.

I don't think anyone's life is at stake during boot camp.

Veteran, we could all be starving AIDS infected babies in Sudan, a member of the homeless in NYC or non-ambulatory wheelchair bound and unemployed.

How can you even attempt to draw analogies between here - we're not even talking apples to oranges.

I hope you're not in litigation. Your briefs would be laughable. We're not in Iraq bro. We're in an effing office working for nazis 12 hours a day. Go back to Camp Pendleton.

Walter Sobchak?

S&C isn't 'Nam. There are rules!

Do any of you think that S&C (or any firm for that matter) is going to take any action against an "abusive" partner so long as that partner is bringing in lots of business? From everything that I have seen, Korry seems to be a centerpiece of their M&A practice and untouchable.

Abusive partners have to be controlled by firm management. That is the purpose of management.

If S&C does not control them - then the whole firm deserves to suffer.

End of story.

3:35 p.m.

She may be the cornerstone - but she is also a huge legal liability to a firm if they do not control her inappropriate behavior.

She was/is a legal liability waiting to happen.

I just love the comments about how we're working for 6 figure salaries and should just shut up. Lets get this straight. The reason why S&C pays us 6 figure salaries and bonuses on top of that, is because they obviously like the quality of our work. The reason they bill us out at hundreds of dollars per hour, is for our quality work.
THE REASON THE CLIENTS PAY THE DAMN BILL, IS NOT TO HAVE US RUNNNING CARS BACK AND FORTH FROM THE OFFICE TO MS. KORRY"S APARTMENT. And let me tell you, if the car gets stuck in traffic and she doesnt get the papers on time, there is hell to pay. She' ll get on the phone and start yelling the hell out of you. I guess she expects us to have a bike in the garage downstairs at ready every time she decides to work from home.

There's nothing new under the sun about abusive partners. Read the chapter from William O. Douglas' auto biography about his short stint at Cravath during the 1930's. During boom periods many firms will give more lip service than usual (no, not a reference to Charney) about morale, retention, sensitivity, and all the rest. But those who watched, endured, survived, or were trampled during the 2000-2003 recession or the 1991-1994 trough can remember all too well that this brief surge of sympathetic noise disappears as soon as the economy slows.

Criminal misconduct or actual malpractice by partners - e.g., the terminated partners from Donovan Leisure who hid documents during Kodak Berkey, the insider trading Wachtell partner from the mid 1980's, and some of the thieves who ran Finley Kumble into the ground - these folks will do hard time, their firms may stumble briefly or permanently.

But for the most elite of the NY LA Chicago DC firms - very little will ever change. To be sure there will be "associates committees," flotillas of sensitivity consultants, and training programs. But an a-h partner who has enough influence to survive and prosper will get a hall pass on their behavior 99% of the time.

Partners know their colleagues weaknesses but they choose to ignore them or tolerate them in thehopes that others will tolerate or ignore their own limitations, questionable conduct etc. And they have a lot more to worry about in their own lives - so they just ignore the behavior. The will pretend, momentarily, to care - but it will not change.

3:48

It will change if firm culture changes and it is no longer acceptable.

Maybe the Chareny case will move things in that direction.

Legal brilliance/hard work and decency are not mutually exclusive.

How many associates has S&C lost because of Ms. Korry's behavior or others lik her?

How many associates did they not get because of her and others like her?

She will be retired someday - the future of big firms depend on establishing minimally acceptable work environments.

Break the cycle!

Why does Korry insist on working at home?

Why, does she not like taking the subway downtown to her office?

The Soloway blog has pics of Lat zand others at today's conference.

Sorry, not Camp Pendleton -that's the home of the 1st Division. Camp LeJeune NC - 23rd MEU (SOC), assigned to the 6th Fleet in the Med on three tours from 87-93 - then law school, then six years as an associate at an S&C peer firm.

My point is that the environment - like boot camp - will probably never change. Law firms or the military sometimes appear to adapt publicly when, e.g., a recruit drowns or dies in training or perhaps in a moment of truly extreme mistreatment of a lawyer. But the mistreatment is part and parcel of the experience. Always has been. Probably always will be. Even when associates are in great demand. There are martinets, sociopaths, and sadists in law firms and in the military. Carry on.

"Partners know their colleagues weaknesses but they choose to ignore them or tolerate them in the hopes that others will tolerate or ignore their own limitations, questionable conduct etc."

Absolutely correct. It's a form of mutual non-aggression pact. I'm sure every other partner at S&C knows what Korry is like, but have no intention of doing anything about it.

The other long-term problem at a firm like S&C is self-selection: that the people who understand that Korry-like behavior is not only unnecessary, but actually detrimental to the firm and the clients, are the ones who get out fast. The ones who stay and make partner are the ones who are more likely to grow up to be Korry-like.

A lawyer like Korry probably believes she is successful because of how she behaves, when in reality she is successful despite the way she behaves.

David,

This is a pretty cool feature, i.e., open a thread to comment on some abusive and ridiculous partner. Suggestion for next such thread: S&C litigation partner Yvonne S. Quinn. I bet you get a TON of great stuff.

L2L, why do you care what it was like at Wachtell? Tier 2 students aren't allowed within 500 feet of Wachtell.

I know that a mere Tier 2 student like me can't work at Wachtell, but I just wonder what the culture is like since it is the Vault Ranked Number 1 firm. Is everyone there harder working and more loyal than Tier 2?

i completely disagree with the poster who is unhappy with the direction the site is taking. The old dull coverage of random egghead law professors and former scotus clerks was boring.

But with Shanettagate, Charneygate, and the salary stuff, ATL is truly, truly onto something. There is a huge yawning information gap out there, and this site is filling this gap, to young lawyers' benefit and partners' dismay. Now, with ATL out here, you treat your staff like complete shit cause it makes you feel powerful and you don't think anyone will rat you out? People will find out about it. You cheap out on your salaries, or demand unreasonable hours, or send insane memos to your associates? Again, sites like this are there. This kind of info used to only be found on random illiterate and untrustworthy message boards. I remember the whole bump-to-$125,000 back in 1999 took way longer, trickling east from silicon valley. now there is instant movement in the market. keep up the good work.

Look, I know for a fact S&C is desperately recruiting associates right now.

NEWSFLASH. STOP LETTING YOUR CLASSLESS PARTNERS TREAT PEOPLE LIKE GARBAGE.

Even if you side with S&C over Charney, you must admit -- there would be no lawsuit if Krautheimer and Korry weren't assholes.

Anonymous Veteran, we get it. Being in Iraq is harder than working for this bitchy partner. So is getting hit by a bus, getting cancer, etc.

We don't care though. We're still going to bitch about it. And you care why?

"But the mistreatment is part and parcel of the experience."

Obviously you haven't worked at my firm. There are no "screamers" -- it's thought to be uncivilized. And it's seriously frowned upon.

It's part of the culture.

S&C should have a "zero verbal abuse policy." They should take this mistake and learn from it.

And I hope Korry is humiliated.

8:10 - Are they looking at tier 2 students?

Suggestion for another partner to discuss: Jay Kasner, Skadden NY.

The people who are making "suggestions" as to partners to rag on --get the ball rolling yourselves. Lat's not going to create a post to talk shit w/o some reasons. Why this Skadden dude?

Tell tales!!

I agree, this website has finally found its stride

What I'd really like to see is a picture and comments about a partner/owner of a crappy ambulance chasing firm like say, Mr. Raymond Schwartz of Schwartz & Associates. The guy's offices are a world away from the palatial offices of S&C, in a crappy rundown office in the Empire State Building with files stacked waist high in the waiting room, papers spilling out everywhere, threadbare carpets and lawn furniture for would-be clients to sit on. He pays his associates crap, gives them a stack of papers and sends them off to city court expecting them to know everything and consequently turnover is extremely high there. But he knows there's an oversupply of JDs and there always will be so he has used it to his advantage.

I don't know Kasner. But I can imagine anyone insecure enough to apparently list every freaking case he's worked on in his life in his Skadden profile as being exactly the kind of guy who gets his rocks off picking on associates. I bet he's a total Napoleon.

Skadden, Please hire more tier 2 grads. We're hard working, loyal and we don't complain.

Napoleons are all over the law. If you're short and male and in the law, odds are you're an asshole.

Loyola 2L,

You really are embarrassing.

Do you have ANY self-esteem? Or is it all wrapped up in the credentials that you DO NOT HAVE but wish you did.

I wish I were a Billionaire but I am not.

hehehe.

I used to have self-esteem, but a year of getting my tier 2 resume rejected has turned me into Rodney Dangerfield.

If you read the complaint from Charney, and you believe it (now that is a big IF), then what exactly is so bad about what Alexandra Korry is alleged to have done? That she called the relationship "unnatural"? I'm all in favor of gay rights, but let's not be so sensitive. Reasonable, intelligent and liberal-minded people are allowed to think that homsexual relationships are unnatural. Why not? There is a real debate out there (not conlcuded last time I checked) on whether homosexuality is natural or not (kind of like the nature v. nurture debate about babies). Is she (or anyone) not allowed to think that homsexual acts are not natural, i.e., that they happen but not in the ordinary course of nature?

If you read the complaint from Charney, and you believe it (now that is a big IF), then what exactly is so bad about what Alexandra Korry is alleged to have done? That she called the relationship "unnatural"? I'm all in favor of gay rights, but let's not be so sensitive. Reasonable, intelligent and liberal-minded people are allowed to think that homsexual relationships are unnatural. Why not? There is a real debate out there (not conlcuded last time I checked) on whether homosexuality is natural or not (kind of like the nature v. nurture debate about babies). Is she (or anyone) not allowed to think that homsexual acts are not natural, i.e., that they happen but not in the ordinary course of nature?

And, by the way, since 95% of the comments about her have nothing to do with the complaint but are just a convenient excuse for many of you to air out your grievances against her, let's talk about that.

Yes, she's tough (I used to work at S&C) but I find it laughable (sad, actually) that you're such complainers. Did you stand up to her when you had the chance? She may be tough, but she's ultimately fair and if you make your case, she listens. If you don't make your case, then you exhibit the kind of passive-aggressive tendencies that you have only yourself, not her, to blame for. I would have thought that people who make it to one of the top law firms in the world would be made of sterner stuff. I cringe at the thought of clients leaving the fate of their companies to your negotiating abilities - this business is not brutal like some, but you need to have some stomach for adversity.

Also, S&C values the opportunity to have a woman M&A partner - that is a rarity and was even more so when she became partner. For those of you who wonder why she often works from home, yes that's a quirk of hers but that has been negotiated with the firm. But she's among the most efficient people any of you have met (or not met) and believe me, clients should be happy to pay an extra few cab fares to get the benefit of her work (from home or otherwise). In the amount of time most of you have spent on this blog in the past week, she would have negotiated two or three multibillion dollar deals. How much does your time on this blog cost your clients (compared to a $30 car ride)?

Yes, Curious, I don't know why ANY gay person would find it offensive or discriminatory in the least to have the deranged partner supervising them scream that their relationship with a male colleague is "unnatural"!

I mean, really, everyone knows that Alexandra Korry, when she's not torturing underlings, is one of the world's leading scientific researchers into the ultimate causes of homosexuality! That's probably all this woman, who is known for being abusive, was referring to. Yes, it all was probably related to her research.

And indeed, Krautheimer was in all likelihood simply attempting to helpfully warn Charney of the actual possibility of fecal matter on the document he was handing him. After all, he's a Tier 4 grad -- I don't think they teach "Keeping Feces Off Your Reading Material" at law schools like that.

[Rolls eyes.]

I got an F plus last semester in "Keeping Feces Off Your Reading Material." Do you think that's why no one's hiring me?

Sure, a gay person is free to find that comment offensive, and maybe most would, but hey that's freedom of thought and even speech, right? Since when are questions as difficult as this one decided by vote, much less by vote of a small group of people? What I am saying is that there's nothing inherently offensive about the statement - doesn't say that gay people are bad, or dumb, or even that they SHOULD NOT do what they do. All it says is that it is unnantural, and that is an observation many people make on the basis of empirical observation. People have been born (i.e., in nature) with 6 or more fingers and three nipples, but is it a crime to say that that is "unnatural" - remember, not a statement that it is bad.

And, this is if you actually believe Charney. I, for one, have many doubts just on the basis of the complaint.
Do you really believe that Krautheimer would say what Charney alleges? If so, why? Just because he says it. That's foolish. I, for one, find it hard that Krautheimer would have created that kind of a confontation in his office. What was the immediate fallout? What did he expect Charney would do? Say nothing. Unlikely, given the mouth on this guy.

Sure, a gay person is free to find that comment offensive, and maybe most would, but hey that's freedom of thought and even speech, right? Since when are questions as difficult as this one decided by vote, much less by vote of a small group of people? What I am saying is that there's nothing inherently offensive about the statement - doesn't say that gay people are bad, or dumb, or even that they SHOULD NOT do what they do. All it says is that it is unnantural, and that is an observation many people make on the basis of empirical observation. People have been born (i.e., in nature) with 6 or more fingers and three nipples, but is it a crime to say that that is "unnatural" - remember, not a statement that it is bad.

And, this is if you actually believe Charney. I, for one, have many doubts just on the basis of the complaint.
Do you really believe that Krautheimer would say what Charney alleges? If so, why? Just because he says it? That's foolish. I, for one, find it hard to belive that Krautheimer would have created that kind of a confontation in his office. What was the immediate fallout? What did he expect Charney would do right there in his office? Say nothing. Unlikely, given the mouth on this guy.

Plus, look who you're defending. A guy who drags the very people who tried to help him throught the mud and embarasses them or worse? He drags Kotran (the only partner, according to him, who helped him) into this in the worst way and embarasesses him in front of clients, partners and collegues. He drags Dan Serota into this by gratuitously mentioning that he revealed Korry's confidences, and thereby threatens to ruin Serota's career (they guy is up for partner soon). He needlessly adds others into the complaint (melissa sawyer, dan petroff, andrea locklear) and throws mud on them. If this is the way he treats people he likes, I'd rather be one of the people he dislikes. I don't know him, but he's lost my sympathy vote by being such an ass to others. Don't be so quick to support a guy who seems to want to be a hero, and draw attention and settlement riches to himself. Maybe there is something to his complaint, or maybe not, it's hard to say without knowing the facts. But he's acted in an atrocious way and that's pretty clear.

Sure, a gay person is free to find that comment offensive, and maybe most would, but hey that's freedom of thought and even speech, right? Since when are questions as difficult as this one decided by vote, much less by vote of a small group of people? What I am saying is that there's nothing inherently offensive about the statement - doesn't say that gay people are bad, or dumb, or even that they SHOULD NOT do what they do. All it says is that it is unnantural, and that is an observation many people make on the basis of empirical observation. People have been born (i.e., in nature) with 6 or more fingers and three nipples, but is it a crime to say that that is "unnatural" - remember, not a statement that it is bad.

And, this is if you actually believe Charney. I, for one, have many doubts just on the basis of the complaint.
Do you really believe that Krautheimer would say what Charney alleges? If so, why? Just because he says it? That's foolish. I, for one, find it hard to belive that Krautheimer would have created that kind of a confontation in his office. What was the immediate fallout? What did he expect Charney would do right there in his office? Say nothing. Unlikely, given the mouth on this guy.

Plus, look who you're defending. A guy who drags the very people who tried to help him throught the mud and embarasses them or worse? He drags Kotran (the only partner, according to him, who helped him) into this in the worst way and embarasesses him in front of clients, partners and collegues. He drags Dan Serota into this by gratuitously mentioning that he revealed Korry's confidences, and thereby threatens to ruin Serota's career (they guy is up for partner soon). He needlessly adds others into the complaint (melissa sawyer, dan petroff, andrea locklear) and throws mud on them. If this is the way he treats people he likes, I'd rather be one of the people he dislikes. I don't know him, but he's lost my sympathy vote by being such an ass to others. Don't be so quick to support a guy who seems to want to be a hero, and draw attention and settlement riches to himself. Maybe there is something to his complaint, or maybe not, it's hard to say without knowing the facts. But he's acted in an atrocious way toward others and that's pretty clear.

1:30, people are free to believe anything they want. I think its when they verbalize that "free thinking" in front of others who are specifically protected by laws or nondiscrimination policies that the free speech stops in the workplace.

Curious, it seems your grasp of how to use the internet is about as weak as your grasp of this city's antidiscrimination laws. Stop triple posting.

Guess what moron, it's "freedom of speech" to say racist things too, but it also exposes you to CIVIL liability when you do it in the workplace.

Those who read what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you say I wrote, will quickly conclude who the moron is.

I didn't say it's freedom of speech only but said there is nothing inherently wrong with saying the relationship is unnatural. Is there? If so, please explain; and if you can do so using logic rather than hysterics, there's a bonus (i won't triple post any more - maybe I need to spend less time working and more time blogging).

2:24pm, I dont' really know the law in this are but from i remember, Korry did not verbalize any of this in front of anyone who was protected by laws. as i recall she said this in confidence to dan serota, who then repeated it to charney. law aside, what will this world come to if you can't speak privately in your own office?

and again, this is if you believe any of this and i have my serious doubts. it's a bit of a surreal conversation, sort of like a motion to dismiss where you have to assume for this purpose only the facts as alleged.

"Sure, a gay person is free to find that comment offensive, and maybe most would, but hey that's freedom of thought and even speech, right? Since when are questions as difficult as this one decided by vote, much less by vote of a small group of people? What I am saying is that there's nothing inherently offensive about the statement - doesn't say that gay people are bad, or dumb, or even that they SHOULD NOT do what they do. All it says is that it is unnantural, and that is an observation many people make on the basis of empirical observation. People have been born (i.e., in nature) with 6 or more fingers and three nipples, but is it a crime to say that that is "unnatural" - remember, not a statement that it is bad."

This is not a First Amendment issue. NYC gives protection to gay people. So having a partner refer to gay relationships in general as "unnatural" is the legal equivalent, under NYC law, as saying that whites are superior to other races based on selective scientific evidence. So not, of course, its a crime, but it is actionable behavior under NYC law.

That being said, I don't think the comment was intended to refer to a homosexual relationship. The comment seems to be more of critique of abnormal working relationship (if Charney was parked at this associate's desk for longer than the length of one crazy deal, as has been commented on, that is quite "unnatural.")

I think characterizing someone has "unnatural," especially when that very type of language has historically been used in a pejorative manner, is preceisely the type of attacks antidiscrimination laws and nondiscrimination policies protect against. What is someone were to refer to Africa-American as simply "inferior" because there are some scholars (bell curve) who would put forth that argument thereby creating some debate. The situation in Charney's case is no different.

2:40,

Well, if she had said "inferior" or some other term like that, I would take your point. But she didn't, assuming she even said any of this (I think we need a legend at the end of all these emails that says this :)) She doesn't seem to have been attacking anyone, even according to the coplaint. This was a private statement to someone not named Aaron Charney.

Look. Krauthheimer is a menatl patient and Korry is evil. End of story.

curious,

Homosexuality is an inborn sexual orientation - just like heterosexuality. The jury is NOT OUT. It is biological.

You either respect scientific fact or you don't. I do respect it.

Besides that - Korry has no business commenting on an associate's sex life or relationship period.

curious,

Charney had to include those people in the Complaint - they are an essential part of his case.

His Complaint rings true. There is no way he would put himself through this unless it were. He has destroyed a very promising and brilliant career.

3:06,

"Unnatural" is OK to say but "inferior" is not?

I think "unnatural" is MORE offensive than inferior - it goes to the person's actual being as a human.

Again - there are laws in place as well as firm policies to protect against this type of abusive language.

However, one of the above posts makes a good point - what if Korry meant that their WORK relationship was unnatural or strange??

Oh - lets not give the bitch a defense!!!

The fact that she is a woman and an M&A partner just proves the point that S&C was willing to ignore her outrageous, and possibily illegal, actions because she was a rarity - a female M&A partner.

S&C may end up paying dearly for that.

Being inborn doesn't make it "natural," just as much as three nipples aren't natural just because they are inborn. And i have never heard the kind of scientific certainty that you allege there to be. I've heard of theories, but I've never heard them being "proven" (please educate us all if they have been). None of us were a fly on the wall in her office so no one of us know how she really meant the word even if she used it. In my view, there's enough uncertainty here to keep the pc police at bay.

As far as Charney having to have brought in the innocent bystanders to make his case, i think that's b.s. let's take an example. he mentions that he and only one other associate, petroff, were left of a receruiting mentor list and the other one was left off because he was being fired. yeah, i'm sure that's how petroff characterized not making partner to him parents. and i'm sure he loves that 20,000 readers of the complaint (including everyone he has ever worked with) now sees him in that light. was this avoidable? let's see - how about if the complaint said "the only other person to be omitted was being fired" and did NOT mention his name? uh, what exactly would the harm to his case be? that way, maybe a handful of people would know what he is talking about, but the whole world. and there is plenty of time for the name to come out at trial if this ever gets there. many other examples of gratuitous mud slinging. i don't think the strength of his case, or its settlement value, rested on any of the gratuitous bs he threw in there (i realize that some of it was unavoidable, but much of it was).

Poor Dan. Is this you writing on the blog?

I'm sure Korry must be horrible to work with, but the comments on here make me wonder if she became a fire breathing dragon to survive under this kind of male chauvinistic scrutiny. So what if she works from home? Major kudos to her for having a husband and kids while an M&A partner at one of NY's most prestigious firms. However awful she was to her associates, it looks like she gets the job done. How dare you question the ethics of billing hours from home! Why the hell would it matter where she's working when she has a cadre of intelligent albeit greedy and obnoxious associates slaving away in the office? Doesn't take much brains to figure that one out, does it?

Lat- why are you so focused on the Korrys and Cutlars of the world, while you pay little attention to similar behavior by men?

Googled Korry and found an interview she gave about her negotiating style:

"Another quality high on Korry’s list: a sense of humor. “When parents freak out with their children,” she says, “it really doesn’t help. ‘I want you to do this!’ You start making some loud demand, banging on the table and making your child do it—it’s not going to get your child to where you want. And similarly in a conference room, standing and banging your hand on the table does not get you to win. "

From the sound of it, this doesn't apply when dealing with S&C associates. Haha!

Full article: http://www.boardmember.com/issues/archive.pl?article_id=12499
(free registration required)

1:49 AM - Re: Lat's diva obsession, see this post:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/atl_public_service_announcemen_3.php

"[W]hat could be more compelling than the story of a woman making her way in the LEGAL world -- a world that has been male-dominated since its inception? What does it take for a woman to succeed in such a traditionally masculine realm? What sacrifices must she make along the way, as she climbs the ladder to Biglaw partnership, a top DOJ post, the federal bench?"

"Is it our fault that women are much more interesting and psychologically complex than men?"

David:

As one of your earlier commenter observed, you may want to do a thread on crappy firm where: (a) the pay is low and (2) the work environment is horrible.

From what I have heard (and as one of your earlier posters observed), Raymond Schwartzberg is one of those firms.

Some say that Mintz & Fraade may also qualify.

Curious,

You are either retarded or never worked at S&C. How can you describe Korry's work method as "efficient"? Unlike most partners who let you go off and do your work and then submit drafts for their review, Korrysits on the phone with you for hours on end drafting agreements line by mind-numbing line. Thus it takes two to three times longer to get anything done. Why does she do things this way when it's clearly a waste of her and the associates' time? Because if she reviewed and signed off on the document herself, sh would "own" it and she doesn't have any interest in that. She wants the document to be yours, not hers, so when in the end something is fucked up, it's because you failed to point out the problem when "discussing" your document in your 9 hour telephone call rather than her oversight in review. Say whatever you want about the "unnatural" comment, which I think had to do with the joined-at-the-hip-24-7 aspect of Charney's relationship, but you're nuts to defend Korry's work method as efficient.

Ms. Korry,
Please hire me. I will gladly spend 9 hours on the phone with you drafting a document.
Loyola 2L

Sexist much? Where is the Krautheimer thread?

I do think it's a little sexist to start in a huge post on the diva antics of Korry, when there were ALSO tons of comments about the divo antics of Krautheimer!

Particularly when it's Krautheimer at the center of the alleged nasty comments, and Korry only in the background.

3:28

Your comments may be a bit premature.
Who knows? The Krautheimer thread may be in the works.

There have been TWO Korry threads now -- this is the second one. And no Kraut thread I can recall.

I can understand the humorous love of divas. But let's be real here. This isn't Broadway in the 1950s-- on this site, in this professional field, "diva" is code for "raging bitch female lawyer." And there are a lot of raging bastards out there too.

I mean, it's lat's site and all, but he's got a comments field for a reason. Bring on the divos!!

She's trolling the blog from home while waiting on documents.

Please,

If you've ever spent 9 hours on the phone with Korry, then what does that say about your abilities, or at least her view of them? Some partners get into details of drafting and others ignore it, but ignoring drafting doesn'tmake one efficient. Whatever it is that she decides to do, she does remarkably fast - she is a very quick thinker, writer (and of course she is quick to judgement too, that's one of the things that people hate). And if she did things on her own, as an alternative that you hint at, then how would you ever learn? That's a dumb way for partners and associates to interact. Maybe you just never got far enough to take your training wheels off, but believe me that happens.

Look, everyone has different styles and she has hers and we all have ours. Does she have quirks? Certainly. Does she sometimes jump to conclusions? Yes. But see my prior post about standing up for yourself. She is ultimately very fair, which is more important than being just nice on the surface as is often the case with partners at major law firms. With her, you get honesty (including honest criticism), directness, no b.s., a great legal education (if you can take it). Believe me, that's not a bad diet for junior associates. But she can be too tough and I realize some people would rather fold than to stand up and fight. I don't blame them, but I don't think that's a reason to exagerrate her faults here.

curious is not korry, nor petroff, nor related to either. i know korry but never even met petroff. i'm just someone who believes in doing the right thing - and dumping mud on korry just bc some shmuck added her to a complaint is not right in my book. as i've written earlier, there are reasons for people to dislike her (that can be said about many, if not most of us). but these unsupported attacks are not called for. so im just writing it like i see it.

OK. Curious = Krautheimer then.

"But she can be too tough and I realize some people would rather fold than to stand up and fight."

This is also precisely what I've been advised to do as a junior associate. I have never once had somebody tell me to stand up to a difficult partner - it's basically a shit-eating culture of silence around these tyrants.

Curious, you realize that your "stand up and fight Korry" approach doesn't really work in the context of the Complaint here. the allegation is that she went on a vengeful "liars should be fired" rampage when Charney allegedly complained about her "unnatural" comments?

9:55am,

I'm not suggesting Charney had to stand up and fight Korry in the context of the complaint, you're right. My comments were addressed to those who were just seizing on the opportunity to badmouth her and say how tough she is in general (using more artful words than those :)). What I'm saying to those people, or to those reading who haven't worked with her, is that she gives a fair hearing to those who ask for it.

9:22,

curios does not equal krautheimer. i said i didn't even know petroff, so that would be a hard trick unless you think i'm making it all up. trust me, i have no reason to lie about this. if you read what i've written, you'll see that i've given my fair assesment, not some one-sided defense, even though it tends toward the defense side because i believe the attacks have been so unfounded.

It is super strange that this Curious poster keeps defending Korry. Maybe it's her hubby?

Curious,

The proof is in the pudding. If your assertions about efficiency and training were true, wouldn't Korry be much more proficient deal-wise than she is and wouldn't the firm be filled with M&A stars trained by Korry? The fact is not a single star associate has ever emerged from that "training" and most rising players fight tooth and nail to get away from her, not just because of her personality but because the time demands of working with her preclude an associate from tending to other matters. Junior associates given unsual levels of responsibility under Korry have left the M&A group rather than leverage that experience because the prospect of working with her again is so unappealing. And 8+ hour phone calls interspersed with "bio breaks" as she calls them are not unusual for people who have worked with her on gigantic deals and from your postings I tend to doubt you are such a person. If she were Alexander, she would have never made it out of her 7th year.

someone has to defend her. i've posted several times that i'm not a relation, so stop your specualation and focus on facts.

to 1:00, i will agree with you insofar as the "training" one gets with her is different from that you get from other partners. i did work with her and saw others work with her. my impression is that she puts you through a meat grinder to get it right, but in part it's because her standards are super high. not everyone at S&C is equal in this regard. as i said earlier, some partners prefer the tree top (or even 30,000 feet) views to the nitty gritty. she's in the trenches and you really learn from watching her. and clients get their money's worth when they have the benefit of a smart partner's attention rather than just an associate's. she is undeniably super smart and knows her stuff. is there anyone on this board that has worked with her who is denying that? i doubt it. so that level of smarts, mixed with that level of intensity, makes for a tough but very educational experience. i defend her because i think she is a great lawyer and does not deserve the abuse some people have heaped on her. it's as simple as that.

Curious... you are a knight in shining armor but again - you make no sense. WHY does someone "have to defend her?" Seriously.

i defend her not out of obligation, but out of a sense of fairness. i know her to be an excellent lawyer and also a good person (once you get beyond the hard exterior) so what do you expect me to say when i read some of the comments that are posted up north?

Curious.... you really are curious. You must have a cyush on Korry. The question is: Is it a Stockholm Symndrome type crush? Probably.

Curious,

The idea that working for Korry is more difficult because she has higher standards is laughable. Who is the partner with lower standards? Working for her is harder because the usual guidance and expertise from the partner is replaced with a false "collaboration" where all responsibility devolves to the senior associate. Working with her and a more professional partner (i.e., any other partner) at the same time is surreal: you spend half your day as a respected person engaged in high level enterprise then change clothes and spend the rest of the day desperately trying to clean a monkey cage while the inmate pelts you with shit. I find it hard to believe that certain highly respected people at the firm rationalize being partners with her and I just assume it's a matter of out of sight, out of mind since she's never in the office and they don't have to deal with her.

Curious,

I do know about the scientific evidence re: sexual orientation.

I have researched it extensively.

Besides - if someone were born with 3 nipples would it be OK for Korry to go around the office talking about that person being unnatural.

What if someone were over 6"5" tall - is it OK for Korry to make statements to the effect that it is unnatural?

It is clearly a demeaning statement
about an inborn trait and, most importantly, totally inappropriate in the workplace.

I am sure there are people out there that think a female M&A partner is "unnatural."

How would Korry feel about her SUPERIORS saying that about HER.

Good god - where would a gay person have to move to NOT be degraded, if not NYC?

curious,

I have worked with numerous partners over the years - some exceptionally demanding. I respect people with high standards and perfectionism. I strive for it myself.

However, there is a big difference between a partner who has exceptionally high standards and one who is problematic.

It is a question of character, i.e., behavior under pressure.

Sounds like Korry cannot handle being an M&A partner at S&C - I don't mean she cannot handle the work - but she cannot handle the pressure of being a female in a male dominated field.

Is she afraid she has to be 100% perfect or they will can her because she is a woman?

Is she afraid that the men are just looking for a reason to fault her?

The picture I have of her is that of an insecure person. Why is she insecure? Her gender? Maybe. Maybe that is just part of it.

I know it when a person's character flaws or pyschological baggage are eclipsing their performance at work.
I can smell it.

Korry smells.

please,

well, tell me about your experiences. you draw a lot of conclusions but what is this based on? are you currently at S&C? if not, i'm sure you won't mind giving some examples.

Anonymous 4:44 p.m., you might want at some point in your life to consider the arguments of people who disagree with you. How familiar are you with the research of pro-family organizations like the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family? Aside from the question of nature v. nurture, there are many reasons why well-meaning, reasonable people may find homosexual conduct objectionable.

And yes, I am aware that there exist conservatives who immediately dismiss the arguments of anyone who is affiliated with the ACLU, Legal, or other homosexual or atheists groups, and I believe that this is wrong, too. Arguments from both sides should be addressed on their merits.

5:27,

I am very familiar with the religious right wing organizations that you mentioned.

They adher to the notion that homosexuality is a "behavior" and that there are only heterosexuals.

That is, they belive in NARTH - a reparative organization that tries to turn gay people straight.

Guess what NARTH and the religious right organizations - as well as the gay people they recruit to change their orientation - have in common?

Yes - you guessed it - their religious beliefs condemn homosexuality - based on a few scriptures in thre Bible [I will not get into how they pick and choose which scriptures to rally their "base" and which ones they simply ignore]

Whether you approve of homosexuality or not is irrelevant - it is like saying that you do not approve of someone who is over 6"5".

The fact is - a small percentage of people [all mammals] are born with an homosexual sexual orientation.

A person can choose to not act on their sexual orientation or to repress it - but that does not mean they have changed it.

No one has ever been proven to actually have changed their sexual orientation.

How could they when it is biological?

NARTH psychologists have all been discredited by their profession - and - yes - they are all religious fundamentalists or the like.

Get the picture yet???

In addition - the Traditional Values Coalition and a few other so called "family organizations" are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center - an organization that tracks such groups as the KKK, skinheads, etc.

This is 2007 - not 1950. I respect and value the knowledge and understanding that reserach and science have provided to the understanding of our world.

If you do not - then please move to Iran or some such place where religious leaders - stuck in the middle ages - run things.

Interesting "each sentence its own paragraph" style.

"The fact is - a small percentage of people [all mammals] are born with an homosexual sexual orientation."

Is that a fact? Has that been proven? If so, I have never heard about it. If there were some definitive study or report, I would imagine that every advocacy group would be trumpeting it from the mountaintops to discredit the arguments made by the aforementioned conservative groups.

5:27

PS,

Sexual orientation is not about politics, ideology, or religion. It is about the way a person is born - the way a portion of their brain stem is developed in the Mother's uterus during pregnancy.

If religious and so-called "Pro-family organizations" insist on denying science and facts - inorder to maintain their fundamentalist religious beliefs - then they are ensuring the demise of the very thing they claim to hold dear.

A Bishop has written a great book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".

It points out how the Bible contains many statements and passages that science has since disproven.

Make no mistake - TVC, Focus on the Family, AFA, etc. are engaged in political warfare - a battle between an outdated belief system - and truth.

Take your pick - but I can clue you in to who is and will win.

6:37

I will send you numerous links to such studies.

Give me a couple of minutes.

BTW - every time one of these studies comes out TVC, AFA, etc. - do an interesting job of trying to twist the science and results to fit it into their political/religious beliefs.

It is interesting - but of course - it is also evil.

Do you know how money those organizations make [get from their members] re: the gay issue - not to mention how they use it to garner political clout.

6:44: where do environmental factors fit into the equation (i.e., childhood sexual abuse, etc.)?

6:52,

There is zero coorelation between childhood sexual abuse and sexual orientation.

They are not related.

Read this and any links incorporated therein re: biological basis for sexual orientation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Many serial killers, rapists and molesters also have a genetic propensity to do what they do -- that does not make it right (this is not to say that homosexuality is comparable to murder, only to refute the point that genetic means legitimate). I agree that this is part of the issue, but not the whole issue.

Millions of people worldwide died of AIDS over the past 25 years. Likewise, the billions of dollars spent on AIDS research could have saved millions of lives had they been spent on other, non-preventable diseases. Needless to say, if the TVC had its way re: enforcement of homosexual sodomy laws, this would have been avoided. Now, you can always argue that homosexual behavior is worth more than all of these lost lives, and you might even be right, but it still seems to be an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

Folks,

Please - do not get your scientific information from religious organizations.

The earth is NOT 10,000 years old. The earth is NOT flat. Stars are not windows to Heaven. Homosexuality is NOT an immoral behavioral choice.

What is so great about the Dark Ages???

Notice the Wiki article starts with this: "no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation." Maybe 6:44 and his/her progeny are jumping the gun on their statements?

7:07,

So being romantically and sexually attracted to a member of your own sex because you are an homosexual is:

1. the same as murder?

2. the same as forcablely sexually penetrating someone?

3. the same as molesting a child?

Everyone has a sexual orientation. Are you ashamed of sex?

Maybe you should think about human acts that