Hello Lattie,

Long time no speak.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment that anyone who thinks that the Paul Hastings lawyer would be a barrier to settlement in this instance doesn't have a very realistic view of NY BigLaw.

The practice almost without exception in these cases is to pay up, usually before a complaint is filed. Nearly every major firm in NY has a discrimination complaint skeleton or two in its closet -- but you've never heard of most of them. With good reason. A check is written, and most people (not Charney, obviously) take it and shut up -- because they want to order from Seamless Web in this town again.

But Charney decided not to play ball from the very beginning here. Placing his complaint with the NYO? Becoming phone pals with Lattie? That's not cricket, as the game is usually played, and at that point to settle without fighting back creates a living legend for S&C that it will be combatting at every on-campus interview from here to eternity.

Now, without knowing much about S&C of recent vintage, I have to add that Charney's complaint struck me as deeply bizarre. I won't bore you with all of my thoughts on it here, but I would expect that S&C thinks it has a reasonable expectation of winning, and not much incentive -- if any -- at this point to go for a quick settlement, since Charney let all the cats out of the bag. At this point, it might as well spend the money in your settlement calculator paying Paul Hastings -- and try to disprove as many of the allegations as possible.

But to return to my original point -- when S&C is your client, and when its reputational ability to attract fresh associate meat is on the line, S&C is calling the strategic shots -- not you. Paul Hastings wants to make S&C happy, and if S&C wants a settlement, it will get a settlement, and if they want a fight, they will get a fight. Paul Hastings billables (not large in the scheme of things anyway for a single plaintiff case like this one anyway) are entirely beside the point.

Damn, Elaine beat me to it. I totally agree.

Also, I wouldn't quickly discount the "let's bury this @sshole" mentality that I'm sure many at S&C have at this point.

If he has been fired now, I can only assume it is because S&C believes they have a bullet-proof basis to fire him for cause.

If that's true, he is in real trouble. At very least it's a demonstration of why he should have got a lawyer.

How many Paul (don't call me Weiss) Hastings attorneys are staffed on this, I wonder.

I don't know Aaron Charney or whether any of his allegations are true, but S&C's lawsuit sets a bad precedent that must be stopped.

Here's a young guy who spent seven years of his life just getting educated to be a lawyer. He worked hard enough to earn a coveted job at S&C. A recent post on ABL also reported that Aaron was an important contributor to an large publicized transaction, and probably worked his ass off to earn his spot in the article.

Knowing his background, I don't believe Aaron became a lawyer to sue his first employer for a quick buck. After investing so many years into his legal career, I don't think Charney wanted to be the prima donna of a freakshow knowing that it would ruin his chances of ever being hired anywhere good. Especially not when he seems to have no money, no lawyer and a mountain of student loans.

We don't know what happened at Aaron's settlement talks with S&C. S&C may have offered an unacceptably low number or dictated unsatisfactory settlement terms, and when Aaron asked for better, S&C told him to take a hike thinking that he'd never sue and that even if he did, no one would pay attention.

What S&C has done is bad for all of us. If S&C gets its way, abusive partners will be encouraged to even more abusive. By suing potential whistleblowers, S&C also weakens the bargaining position of associates who have legitimate discrimination claims.

Regardless of whether S&C has a valid defence, it shouldn't be permitted to silence Aaron or harass him with the expense of a countersuit. S&C pours out tons of publicity about how great it is and how diverse it is, so it shouldn't be allowed to muffle criticism. Any one of us could be in Aaron's shoes someday, and if we don't take a stand now, we might not have a chance later when it's us in the crosshairs.

Elaine,

I agree that a sophisticated client like S&C calls their own shots, but S&C's lawyer has a lot to do with how this turns out.

If Fasman wants to end this quickly for David and S&C, he will sit down with them and try to convince them to settle. Not that my unemployed tier 2 opinion is worth anything but I think a $500,000 offer, packaged with amicable "help you get on with your life" provisions would end this. I don't think Charney's been offered this. I think Fasman is lobbying for S&C to bury Charney and offering a fortune's worth of billable hours to help them do this.

I don’t think a ruthless fight is in S&C’s favor. Charney seems tough and principled. He’s ready for a fight. S&C devastated his promising life and he’s not going to let them get away with it. David Lat is covering every event in this story and the more S&C attacks, the more they seem like bullies. This is still a massive firm against one little guy whose only flaw was that he naively believed he had a right to protest discrimination. Obviously a long fight isn’t in Charney’s interest either. So why don’t these cases settle? In my opinion it’s greedy defense lawyers.

The perverse incentive given to defense lawyers with deep-pocket clients is a taboo subject in the legal world but it’s there. In closing I’ll tell about a case I have firsthand knowledge of. It was a gender discrimination case involving alleged physical assault. The company (a sophisticated client with their own in house counsel) hired two law firms who racked up $2 million of fees in just eight months. As a tier 2 law student who has never, and likely will never, be allowed to step foot in a prestigious defense firm, I don't know how your rack up $2 million in fees in eight months but they did it. Seeing that the plaintiff wouldn’t back off, they called back the dogs and settled for about $700,000 and would obviously have been better off settling at the start.

Loyola2L

Loyola2L:

I think you are completely wrong. First, I'm guessing S&C wants to bury Charney quite independently of any advice Fasman might offer them. Second, I don't really see how said burrying is not in S&C's best interest.

Charney has already paraded around slinging all the mud he possibly can. There is not much to lose on S&C's part in fighting these claims with the goal of being vindicated in the end. If they settle now, all of the "dirt" on S&C is already out there (thanks in part to Lat), and it will look like Charney's claims were legit. If they bury Charney, it looks like they were right all along, and that Charney is an idiot.

S&C doesn't owe Charney anything, much less a "help you get on with your life" check. If I were calling the shots, I would bury him.

That's the kind of stuff I suspect Fasman is telling S&C.

I'm with Loyola.

I'm with Elaine. What reason is there to think that Fasman is acting according to the short term incentives Loyola2L identifies rather than his long term incentives and reputational concerns and/or according to his sense of integrity and/or desire to do a good job?

In any event, as others point out, Fasman is not in charge here, in any sense. I am sure there are plenty of folks at S&C focused on this and telling him what to do. I am sure Fasman advises them, and gives them ideas and options (and then executes at their direction), but S&C is more than capable of evaluating those ideas and options and making decisions. It is virtually certain that big picture strategy like fight vs. settle is being decided by S&C, with Fasman playing a supporting role.

How this plays out depends vastly more on S&C's appetite for a fight, how it views its self-interest etc. than anything Fasman says or does.

The fact is - this is all bad for the legal profession. S&C is supposed to be one of the very best and watching it battle this guy to a pulp won't mean anything.

Loyola2L: Settling a case is a little like pleading the 5th amendment. It may cut off your legal liabilities, but many people see it as a tacit admission of guilt. Since S&C's primary concern here is reputation, settling is not in their best interests. This is really a matter of common sense.

A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken assumption that S&C is worried about, as Loyola2L puts it, not "seem[ing] like bullies."

Now maybe some naive bleeding-heart law students might feel for "one little guy whose only flaw was that he naively believed he had a right to protest discrimination." Tell it to the jury.

Bleeding-heart law students do not hire S&C. Jurors do not hire S&C. Large companies with a lot on the line hire S&C. Those companies want to hire tough (some might say bullying) lawyers who kick ass, take name, and win the case. They do not want trust their fortunes to a law firm full of wimps who fold at the first sign of a fight.

Leaving aside the obvious economic argument that it is sometimes worth it to spend more defending any particular suit than it would cost to settle (repeat players, strike suits, etc.), it seems that S&C litigators would like to show their clients that they are not afraid of a fight and that they will win it.

No potential paying client of S&C gives two shits what happens to some publicity whore plaintiff. Most of those clients probably HATE the likes of Aaron Brett Charney and the liability he represents.

And if recruiting loses a couple academically talented left-wing law students who want to spend a couple years at the firm to pay off their loans before going off to save the world, I think the firm will survive.

Interesting but then again, surely these same large corporations could be wondering how S&C managed to allow it to even get to this point in the first place. :(

To add to Law Clerk's point:

In the end, S&C will seem like bullies only if they lose. If they win, it will look like Charney was a narcissistic child and S&C simply defended itself.

That's not to judge the merits etc., but history is written by the winner.

And right now it looks like S&C may already have convinced a judge that ABC has made a misstep, i.e., taken some liberties he shouldn't have.

Ivy3l,
I think 98% of cases settle. I guess a lot of people lack your "common sense" as you put it.
Loyola2L

Law Clerk,
I just want to be clear that I’m not some bleeding heart liberal. I think Charney’s belief that he could protest harassment, and not come out far worse for it, was naïvely idealistic. Further, I would gladly take whatever stress induced harassment Krautheimer and Korry wished to dish out for an opportunity to work for S&C. As a tier 2 grad I’m going to take such abuse from “toilet” firm partners for 1/3 of the money Charney got. I was just trying to remind S&C of how the public may perceive this.
Loyola2L

I'm really glad people are posting the defense lawyer POV. These are the arguments Fasman makes to get clients to fight. But in my opinion, for the reasons I stated earlier, it's in the plaintiff's and defendant's (but not the defense lawyer's) best interest to settle early.

Regarding the claim that settlements encourage further lawsuits, I don't think anyone would ever want to be in Charney's shoes, whether he gets a $500k settlement or a $2 million verdict in 2 years. The guy clearly had greater hopes for his life than this garbage.

How about a poll:

Percentage chance:
S&C wins
ABC wins
Settlement

I say:
S&C wins: 5
ABC wins: 5
Settlement: 90

"If they win, it will look like Charney was a narcissistic child and S&C simply defended itself."

Public perceptions isn't formed by a judge and jury's ruling. The OJ case was just one (albeit extreme) example of this. I for one don't doubt any of Charney's allegations. I just think it was naive on his part to think he could protest them.

You know, there's something to be said for principle here.

If the firm is outraged at allegations of homophobia it believes to be flagrant extortion, there's no reason not to come out swinging.

I mean, Charney violated his ethical duty to his client by attaching that Kodak email. That shit is fucked up. Kodak had nothing to do with this.

Loyola2L: In 98% of cases, people are more worried about liability than reputation. In that situation, common sense dictates settling. But the situation with S&C is, as outlined above, quite different. Think about it.

Charney's alleged missteps aside, what if everything Charney says is true, S&C knows everything he says is true and Fasman knows everything he says is true. What if there is even more dirty (discrimination-retaliation) laundry that Charney isn't aware of, but that S&C and Fasman know about? Does that change anything? Is this just about tactical advantage and winning? No ethical, moral or other professional considerations come into play? What about actually fixing the problem that got all these gentlemen into hot water in the first place? It seems to me that if Charney is correct in his allegations, that S&C, as leaders in this profession, have more at stake than a few dollars, or the reputation of one firm and its 160 partners. Doesn't S&C want to be that gay-friendly firm Jack Scheich so ardently believed/believes them to be? Or is it all a game? I'm afraid that truth may lie somewhere in the vicinity of "these are rhetorical questions that need no answer." Pity all of us, if that's the case. We have a long way to go.

It isn't the jury's ruling that will make Charney look like a narcissistic child -- though that would help -- it is what S&C will do to him in the meantime (and at any trial if there is one, which I doubt). As 2:35 points out ABC has made himself vulnerable, and attaching the Kodak email is only one of many examples. S&C will exploit that and many other things to full advantage.

Perhaps this breaks ABC, perhaps it stiffens his back and makes him go for broke. (I think at some point ABC takes a modest settlement and calls it a day)

But the point is, up til now it has been all ABC and I suspect he has played all his cards. Its S&C's turn, and when it is all said and done, I bet ABC will look a lot different than he does today.

In the absence of some "smoking gun" that would really hurt S&C, I see NO reason for them to settle this case. It might be slightly different had Charney not acted like such a media whore to begin with, but at this point, S&C is much better served by spending as much as necessary to "bury" him.

Charney crossed plenty of lines in his complaint; lines that needn't be crossed if your only motivation is to seek redress for sexual orientation discrimination. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him.

Oh, and as for the "smoking gun," I think it's safe to say that one does not exist. Otherwise I'm sure we would have heard all about it by now.

Charney is toast.

There's no reason to think we would have heard all about any smoking gun by now.

The smoking gun might be internal S&C email etc. that Charney doesn't yet have.

I agree though that S&C has evaluated that possibility -- likely checked out the emails etc. -- and decided to proceed.

S&C's suit is the best evidence of no smoking gun, though it might be a bluff or just an interim tactic while they still are sorting through everything.

2/3/95

Loyola2L, you're offering a cartoonish view of how defense side litigation works. High stakes litigation in general is basically extortionate, everyone knows it: defense lawyers, their clients, insurers. But that's not really because defense lawyers are driving up billables for their own sake, it's because complex litigation is difficult and time-consuming.

Your statement that discusison of attorneys' fees and costs is a taboo subject with a deep-pockets client is downright laughable. What business would operate in that way? The discussion of legal fees is a subject of constant discussion, grousing, tension, renegotiation, etc. Defense firms who try to drive up their billables to reach into a clients' deep pockets, for no other reason than keeping the litigation going, will be summarily fired. Like with all services, success in defense litigation means results, not a client hemorrhaging money in legal fees. Now this is not to say it never happens, just that it's ridiculous to think that its some kind of norm, and is even more unlikely here. This case involves saving face for S&C, prestige is the paramount interest, the billables are not significant for either S&C or their defense firm. And...really...you think $2 million in fees is that much? Major class action litigation can cost as much as 5 times that much in 8 months. It's the cost of litigation that every client tries to avoid and that most defense lawyers try to get their client to avoid. Thus, 98% settlement rates. Anyway, there you go.

S&C is only showing how evil it really is. The arrogance of the white shoe firms is atrocious. Charney is a brave man, and we are all cowards for not jumping in to help - myself included. In the end, we will all suffer if Charney loses this battle.

Loyola2L,

This isn't meant to be mean. But don't you think S&C is in a hugely better position than you to evaluate Fasman, his performance, and motives.

For a large number of reasons, among them: (1) they are closer to the situation and can evaluate the advice he gives and see if it seems motivated by self interest; (2) they have an incentive to make sure Fasman doesn't work that way; (3) they are better connected in the legal community and probably know how to pick a good lawyer that acts responsibly; (4) they are in a position to hurt Fasman if he doesn't; (5) they are more sophisticated participants in the legal market, with a large number of hugely talented lawyers, with many years of experience and so are hip to the simple point that lawyers get paid more the more they work.

S&C is evil: Seems like you have pre-judged the case, or do you have inside info that supports your belief that Charney is in the right?

"But don't you think S&C is in a hugely better position than you to evaluate Fasman, his performance, and motives."

Of course, but Fasman still has their ear. He was persuasive enough to get them to pick him. Who knows what else he can get them to do.

"He was persuasive enough to get them to pick him. Who knows what else he can get them to do."

Come on. It is not like Fasman is representing some senile and vulnderable client. If anything, S&C is more sophisticated than Fasman. The notion that Fasman can work some Jedi mind trick on S&C so he can run up the bill is simply fatuous.

I must agree with Loyola2L - it is preposterous to suggest that S&C, with their well known lack of legal knowledge and complete unfamiliarity with litigation could possibly evaluate the quality of their legal advice with any reliability. I'm sure they are also completely unfamiliar with how law firms bill, and how to tell whether a legal bill is inflated or not.

Seriously, just because they're named in the law suit this time doesn't mean that they've suddenly forgotten everything they know. If the people handling the matter at S&C thought that Fasman was giving them bad advice, they'd fire him. More likely they think his advice matches very well with what they thought of the case already.

I think Loyola2L is just trying to get people going. He can't possibly be this stupid...

Rodge Cohen: "You're charging us too much. Let's take a closer look at your billables."

Fasman: "These aren't the billables you're looking for."

Rodge: "These aren't the billables I'm looking for."

Fasman: "I can go about my business."

Rodge: "You can go about your business."

Loyola 2L, why don't you take a look at rankings of firms who practice employment law. If you did you would realize that Paul Hastings is the best there is for big time defense in these types of suits. S&C is not dumb enough to choose someone like Fasman because he somehow tricked them; the fact of the matter is Fasman doesn't have to sell himself or trick anybody into doing what he wants because Paul Hastings is the best. Both S&C and PH know what the hell they are doing.

Here's is a fact you should know, PH has represented other major firms in discrimination/retaliatory discharge cases...and guess what they won. So the fact that you think you are such a brilliant litigation strategist compared to the best in the business is astonishing.

I don't want to repeat myself. Please re-read and fairly consider the credibility of my earlier posts. Please also refrain from needless and childish rhetoric.

I'm going with a mixutre of (1) the Loyola 2L doesn't have a clue; (2) he's backed into a corner and flailing for reasons to support his original position; (3) has too fragile an ego -- related to the fact that constantly talks about being at a tier 2 school -- to admit he has reconsidered and changed his position.

Any ideas as to the basis for the TRO papers. Could be:

1. Violation of duty of confidentiality to clients (Kodak email, other references in the complaint)

2. Misapproriation of the S&C partnership agreement

3. Defamation, i.e., he posted the complaint on the web before filing, S&C claims it contains false allegations and because it wasn't a court filing at the time is not protected.

4. Violation of ethical or perhaps some fiduciary duty by tape recording conversations without the knowledge of others (that's allowed under NY law, but not the ethical rules; the question is whether Charney fits within an exception for acting in private capacity)

Anything else?

Oh no I haven't changed my position at all. My posts at 12:48pm and 2:31pm reflect my advice. I think the vigorous protests by defense lawyers illustrate how they're able to get their clients to do things which are not in their best interest.

Also, my complaint about my tier 2 school is the lack of employment opportunities it offers. Loyola is actually a great school otherwise. But what's that worth when firms don't value it on a resume?

Let's all just relax and think about think honestly and rationally. If we can't be intellectually honest on an anonymous forum, then where can we be honest?

Can we start a fundraiser to raise the money that Loyola 2L won't be making cause he's gonna be stuck at a "toilet" firm, so that he'll shut up about his crappy situation on this (and every other) ATL board.

Please? (to 3:58's unrealistic but highly appreciated request)

Loyola,
Why did you choose to go there then? I'm a 2L as well, and I was clearly away of firm hiring practices when I chose what school to go to. I'm sure you knew that going to a "2nd tier" law school would make it an uphill fight to land a biglaw job... so what did you expect?

4:01

I didn't listen to advice clearly given to me and I was swayed by Loyola's propaganda. Many people told me to defer and re-apply. I applied very late and although my credentials actually were within the range of even say a Harvard, I wound up being waitlisted at all the top schools.

Then there was Loyola's propaganda. For example they portrayed their OCI list as including all the top LA firms. It does, but they didn't note that these firms pick very few Loyola grads and that in fact Loyola (unlike say a UCLA) allows pre-screening for 100% of their resumes. As another example Graham Sherr advertised how Loyola has one of the largest career services offices in the country. Size isn't everything I guess.

I'm actually kind of over it though. I started posting my complaints here after witnessing what I though was a shocking exchange between an adjunct prof (who is a biglaw partner) and a Loyola student. The Loyola student basically asked him about job opportunities and the adjunct said something which was the equivalent of laughing in his face. That, combined with my lack of one summer position interview despite being top 25% sort of pushed me over.

Any way, enough about my misery. I really am coming to terms with the limited opportunities I will have and don't really feel a need to complain as much about them.

Loyola2L

Dude, I am starting to appreciate the fact that I had 40 on-campus interviews back in September. We kind of take it for granted here

Lavi Soloway:

What would you say if it turns out that Charney is indeed an extortionate, narcissistic loon whose claims have no basis in fact?

Loyola2L actually was one of the top law school applicants -- could have gone to Harvard -- but fell victim to a Loyola Jedi mind trick.

Could happen to anybody. Watch out S&C.

No Harvard definitely did not offer admission, otherwise I would have accepted in a heartbeat. Please stop the childish rhetoric. Really it's enough.

Loyola 2L, can you please stop hijacking threads. How about you get As this semester and transfer?

Can we get off of Loyola2L's self-absorbed posts, and back to S&C v. Charney?

Think Charney gets a lawyer now?

He really should.

why would you ever go to loyola?

"I could have gone to harvard!"

shut up. no you coudlnt.

work hard and transfer to baltimore community college school of law if youre lucky.

Loyola 2L,

I believe at this point people are offering "childish rhetoric" because you are so clearly wrong, yet insist on refusing to listen to even the most basic logic.

The notion that S&C is some sort of unsophisticated client who doesn't understand how billables work or would somehow be "duped" into continuing litigation despite their desire to settle because Fasman wants to drive up billables is seriously laughable. But for some reason you continue to press on with your ridiculous argument that Fasman is driving this train ny "tricking" S&C into choosing him and by Jedi Mind Tricking them into acting in a manner detrimental to their interests.

So, all we have left is our childish rhetoric. Because if you're going to act like a child, we're going to treat you like a child.

PennLaw, did you really get 40 on campus interviews? wow. i'm amazed that so many employers travel all the way out to penn state! what's pittsburgh like?

To be clear, I could not have gone to H or I would have. Please stop talking about my tier 2 woes, which were raised by 3:46, and are apparently too depressing for the elite school graduates who frequent ATL.

Another actual lawyer,
Why not just make your points, like I did at 12:48 and 2:31 (and which I stand by) without the rhetoric? What's the point of characterizing Fasman's influence as a Jedi mind trick? You would never do that in court, I hope, so why do it here?
Loyola2L

Loyola2L: I think people are focused on your statement that "my credentials actually were within the range of even say a Harvard" but you applied late and did not reapply because of Loyola's propaganda.

To be fair, you are sorta suggesting that but for Loyola's propaganda, you mighta gotten into HLS a year later.....

You might want to just leave it at, "Loyola was my best option at the time."

That's crap, Loyola. You've raised your "tier 2," "toilet firm" woes yourself more than once. Obviously, I don't know your grades, but based on your personality as manifested through your posts on this site, you're unlikely to get past the screening interview anyway. I went to Fordham. We have girls who throw coffee at the librarians; it's hardly an elite law school. Stop demonstrating your inexperience, and start doing some work, so you can get your grades up and perhaps get a 3L position.

Fair enough 4:35. I'm actually over the disappointment. The last week I went from hitting a real low when I finally gave up hope and accepted my position, to slowly dealing with. I actually don't need to talk about it that much anymore so no need to hijack the thread as 4:24 put it.

4:36. I didn't even get a screening interview, but hot coffee at librarians? Wow. Why hasn't David covered that story?

4:28 - nice try

Loyola 2L,

"Why not just make your points, like I did at 12:48 and 2:31 (and which I stand by) without the rhetoric?"

Because trying to make points with you at this point is like trying to talk a brick wall into cooking me breakfast.

But because you apparently missed the point I did make, I will try it again:

S&C is a sophisticated client, not prone to the undue influence you suggest by way of Fasman convincing them to press litigation even after they have determined it is in their best interests to settle.

By the way, your "points" that you think you scored at whatever your earlier posts were is precisely why we can't argue with you anymore.

The notion that billable hours and rates is a tabo subject is ridiculous. Every major client discusses billables vitrually every month when they get their bills. Clients bitch more about bills than they do anything else.

Fasman's incentive isn't to drive up billables, it's to keep S&C happy to ensure they will return as a client (which they apparently have - Fasman has represented them before). It's not like Fasman will personally pocket the fee for this representation. The total billed on this matter will be split amongst the partnership, like every other matter.

And while YOU might think it's in the best interests of a party to settle early, you have to understand the reasons why others don't share your view. Charney has already gone public with his allegations. A settlement now is tantamount to a tacit admission of guilt. S&C has every reason to fight these allegations. It's not like S&C wanted to settle, and Fasman told them it's a bad idea. FYI - the client makes the decisions, not the lawyer. Let's not pretend that S&C isn't a sophisticated client here - and likely runs every decision by their own employment partners anyhow.

So you see, your points are without merit, and you compound this error by continuing to stand by them. THAT'S why I and others resort to rhetoric. Because the task of actually trying to convince you that you're wrong - when you so clearly are - is more trouble than it's worth.

So what sort of strategy do you recommend another actual lawyer? (My strategy, which I stand by, is stated at 12:48 at 2:31.)

Loyola2L:

There is a HUGE difference between suggesting that you think settlement etc. is the strategy S&C should pursue, and arguing -- as you do -- that if S&C pursues a different strategy it is so prima facie unreasonable that it must be because Fasman has Jedi mind tricked them to get some billables for his firm.

Honestly? While Charney is proceeding pro se, I would throw so much litigation at him his head would spin. Remember, this guy is a 4th year finance associate. I don't doubt that he is a smart guy, but I DO doubt that he has any idea how litigation works. I am a midlevel myself, and if someone asked me to help them out on a corporate deal, I can promise you I'd be worthless to them. Point being, you need more than smarts to advance in litigation - you need experience.

"Litigation," by the way, is not simply trial work. Litigation, as those who practice law know, starts from the moment the complaint is filed. Motion practice, pleadings, document requests and objections. It means knowing the Federal Rules and the local rules. What are interrogatories? How many do I get? What is the proper subject of interrogatories? How can I serve a subpoena to demand a deposition or documents from a witness? What about the opposing party? My guess is, Charney has no idea how to answer any of these questions.

And remember, he's not an employment lawyer either. So there's another incentive to press on with litigation - he simply does not have the experience in employment law to understand the nature of his claim and the limits to his claim. Sure, he can hit Lexis all he wants, but does he really understand the intricacies of how employment law works? No way. I certainly don't.

So in my opinion, as long as Charney is acting as his own counsel, it's almost like a 12 year old kid trying to bat at the big leagues. No disprespect to Charney, but he's just well out of his league. He should be smart enough to hire someone who knows how to fight the fight he just picked.

So there it is - my strategy is as long as Charney is pro se, to fire every litigation weapon I have at him - motions, pleadings, objections - you name it. Note that I am not counseling dilatory tactics or frivolous motions that have no merit. I'm saying that if I have a possible cause of action, I'm going to countersue with it. If I have a possible motion available to me regarding a deificient complaint or failure to serve properly, I'm going to use it - whereas I might not in other situations.

If you step into the ring, you need someone who knows how to fight a bull - not someone who knows how to close finance deals.

Loyola2L,

The interesting question is NOT why has Fasman been sucessful in Jedi Mind Tricking S&C into pursuing a strategy that you believe is contrary to its interests. I think it is pretty clear that is not what happened.

Rather, the interesting question -- from your point of view -- should be, why has a highly sophisticated law firm decided to pursue this strategy, i.e., given that S&C knows a lot more about its self interest than I do, is more sophisticated than I am, and given that it has greater incentives to actually act in its self interest than I have when I offer my off-the-cuff opinions as to S&C's self-interest, why might it actually be in this firm's self interest to do something I initially thought it shouldn't. That would be the intellectually honest approach.

AAL. Interesting. I have to admit that Charney is at a huge disadvantage as long as he's pro se. But then again judges are more lenient with pro se plaintiffs and I perceive Charney to be a damn tough, brave and principled foe. I simply do not expect him to back down. He's a Columbia grad and he knows how to research this stuff. There's also the risk that if S&C bullies him, some heroic plaintiff's firm will step in and help David vs. Goliath. There's also the PR nightmare which is David's blog.

Overall I stand by my advice but think you make a good point about his disadvantage as a pro se plaintiff.

5:11,
Childish rhetoric like "Jedi mind trick" and a self-proclaimed ability to decide what is and isn't interesting is never intellectually honest.
I'm going to take a break from this forum but I'll be back later and I think this debate is interesting.
Loyola2L

Loyola2L, what makes you think Charney is ready for a fight? He's already shot all of his ammunition. He's now facing potential damages for various misappropriations: if he hires a lawyer to defend himself, the lawyer will tell him to settle for a walkaway because the net expected value of the case is less than the expected expense of litigating it; if he doesn't hire a lawyer to defend himself, he's poorly situated to defend himself in a PI hearing against experienced litigators who know what they're talking about. He's a corporate attorney who has likely never taken a deposition. If his pay has been cut off, he can't afford to both litigate this case and work at a real job; so every day that this case goes forward costs him money. S&C has little incentive to settle (much less for half a million), because that means that every Melissa Lafsky who wants to quit her job anyway just constructs a scenario where a partner yells at her and sues and she gets half a million instead of two weeks accumulated vacation pay; it's cheaper for them in the long run to fight, even if it takes half a million to litigate, and it won't take that much or that long.

Charney's complaint showed both a complete lack of judgment and that he is out of his league trying to litigate this by himself; that he filed it pro se shows that no employment lawyer thought his claims had real merit. S&C has nothing to lose: Charney never even suffered adverse employment consequences until he filed his complaint; S&C's story will be that Charney complained, they found the allegations meritless, they still accommodated him by putting him with a gay partner; when he started botching that assignment, he sued with a conspiracy theory. That sounds a lot more plausible than Charney's complaint.

My prediction: this settles for zero plus a Charney apology.

I think all the silly cheerleading for Charney on boards like these by people who don't know what they're talking about has deluded lots of folks (Charney included) into thinking this is some sort of game that Charney is winning (see the ridiculous assumption Lat jumped to about a settlement yesterday). If S&C thought Charney could win a case in court, they would have settled back in May. Funny thing about a law firm is that they generally have a lot of experience judging the merits of cases. Now Charney is effectively ruined. He will almost certainly be disbarred for violating DR-4, which is pretty ironic considering what he was trying to do. It's pretty easy for a law firm with a closed email system to figure out all the people within the firm who ever received an email, so it's not a brilliant move to leak said email to your imaginary internet friend. If Charney had worked with a broader group of people at S&C instead of the same people over and over again, he might have learned that a lot of the sharper folks in the place don't take kindly to people fucking with their paper. Maybe he can get a job as an administrative assistant since he has 3+ years experience in that line of work.

Perhaps Charney is using someone for advice who is not willing to serve as counsel of record. That allows Charney to continue to look like he is doing this pro se, while getting help from someone who can guide him, even review motions, etc. I really doubt he can do it, or IS doing it, himself. Maybe it violates some ethics rules (I have no idea) but I am sure there are people who are sympathetic and willing to help in this way as long as it won't become public.

One issue receiving insufficient consideration is the tapes Charney claims to have. He cited them in his complaint and the remainder of the complaint went out of its way to refer to various conversations within the firm. Don't know if he held anything back, but it's possible he has tapes of most of the conversations he recounts in the complaint. That might not be enough to win, depending on the other evidence, but it complicates S&C's position. However, I wonder if Charney's taping ran afoul of NYS law, or otherwise gave rise to an S&C counterclaim.

Wouldn't Charney have produced copies of the tapes by now if he had them? What did he do, threaten S&C with tapes when he demanded money without any proof that he had them?

Who knows. Let's see what comes out in the trial.

NYS allows a party to a conversation to tape it without giving notice to the other participants.

Such taping, however, is not permissible under the ethical rules applicable to lawyers. However, ABC might be able to argue that he was not acting in his capacity as a lawyer when he taped, i.e., he was taping in his personal capacity, and thus did not run afoul of the rule. But I don't know whether such an exception has been well-developed, what its scope might be, etc.

Going back to an earlier point, S&C might just press the issue to bury him in paper.

Loyola 2L:

Re your rants about tier II school (Loyola), may you can learn something from this case:

1. Krautheimer attended a tier V school (WNESL). I bet he worked his ass off in law school. He then took a risk and went for an LLM at NYU.

So may you should trier harder in law school yourself, and follow Krautheimer's example and take an LLM at NYU. May then you can write a letter to S&C asking them to hire you. May be you will get a chance to work with various personalities mentioned in the suit.

Junior Partner
Harvard JD '98

LOL 10:10am

Loyola2L is clearly an S&C plant. The tier 2 stuff is an elaborate ruse intended to throw us off the scent. Now he's playing "good cop" to Fasman's "bad cop" and trying to make a measly $500k seem like a fair settlement.

Zach Fasman doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

Zach Fasman can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.

Junior Partner
Harvard JD '98,

Krautheimer sounds like [and looks like] a real pig.

I don't think anyone should consider him a role model.

BTW - your credentials look impressive - but go get a life. A person's self-worth being tied to where they went to school or where they work is pathetic.

So - who else still feels like there are PR people writing on here?

Last night there were a bunch of comments that seem to have disappeared- I thought this site said, unlike WSJ, that it doesn't censor.

That's interesting. Were they more conrtoversial than usual?

Lat doesnt censor, most likely his computer server crashed and they were all deleted ....

What type of posts got the boot? More pro-S&C public relations posts or more Team Aaron posts or a mixed bag?

I can't seem to understand how Charney could have missed so many thing.

Did he not finish law school and know that you can not go around and write anything you want against the defendants? I mean to me it seems that he was more interested in the publicity surrounding this case rather then actually getting justice for his alleged harassment.

Who knows what he was thinking. We can't put ourselves in his shoes. I mean, imagine the pressure.

3:01, I concur, emphatically.

I still think the kid's been brave. Maybe in a wacky way - but he's brave.

I agree that he was brave to bring such charges against such a powerful law firm but I think we will all agree that he got caught up in the hype of the case and grossly mismanaged any leverage that he may have had.

I don't think ABC was thinking of much except being self-righteous and making a big splash.

Let me preface my comments by saying that if what ABC alleges is true, justice is on his side. That said, I suspect the truth is more nuanced.

But even if ABC is 100% accurate, that doesn't mean he is the most sympathetic figure either.

A lot of his complaint struck me as childish and narcissistic -- which ultimately may be his undoing. It is filled with so much gratuitous and counter-productive stuff:

1. He sells out a number of people who supported him by identifying them in the Complaint.

2. He attaches a copy of the S&C partnership agreement, for the flimsiest of reasons (completely unnecessary for his complaint)

3. He references all sorts of client engagements and attahces the Kodak email, again for no real reason.

It was a Complaint designed to embarass S&C as much as possible -- not just about the wrongdoing, which is totally justified if true, but on every level ABC could think of -- and without much care for the friends he dragged into it publicly.

It certainly was not a professional complaint designed to set up his case. (At the most basic level, why tip off S&C who your best witnesses might be). It opened himself up to tons of vulnerabilities (that plus the idiotic step of posting it on the Internet before -- as opposed to after -- filing it).

Just because ABC may have suffered discrimination doesn't mean he is the best guy. It just means he suffered a wrong. But jerks sometimes are wronged too, and I suspect ABC is something of jerk too.

I don't think ABC was thinking of much except being self-righteous and making a big splash.

Let me preface my comments by saying that if what ABC alleges is true, justice is on his side. That said, I suspect the truth is more nuanced.

But even if ABC is 100% accurate, that doesn't mean he is the most sympathetic figure either.

A lot of his complaint struck me as childish and narcissistic -- which ultimately may be his undoing. It is filled with so much gratuitous and counter-productive stuff:

1. He sells out a number of people who supported him by identifying them in the Complaint.

2. He attaches a copy of the S&C partnership agreement, for the flimsiest of reasons (completely unnecessary for his complaint)

3. He references all sorts of client engagements and attahces the Kodak email, again for no real reason.

It was a Complaint designed to embarass S&C as much as possible -- not just about the wrongdoing, which is totally justified if true, but on every level ABC could think of -- and without much care for the friends he dragged into it publicly.

It certainly was not a professional complaint designed to set up his case. (At the most basic level, why tip off S&C who your best witnesses might be). It opened himself up to tons of vulnerabilities (that plus the idiotic step of posting it on the Internet before -- as opposed to after -- filing it).

Just because ABC may have suffered discrimination doesn't mean he is the best guy. It just means he suffered a wrong. But jerks sometimes are wronged too, and I suspect ABC is something of jerk.

Oh yea. There are definitely some professional public relations people posting on here. It's cute is a strange kind of way.

We can't really assume that any of those people were his friends though 3:26. Also, the "tipping off about best witness stuff" makes no sense unless you are suggesting the firm would pressure the witness in some way? That would be horrendous if true and make anything Charney has done look like tidlywinks.

Hmm - I didn't see anything on the Internet that wasn't a copy of a Complaint which had the Court stuff on it.

S&C is not going to pressure witnesses. They are going to talk to them and get information, maybe lock them in in ways ABC doesn't expect, cut them off from ABC so he can't do the same.

Zach Fasman's hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.

If ABC has what he claims to have in his Complaint then it shouldn't much matter. Let's just see how it shakes out. All this speculation is just dopey.

I read something applicable this morning,

To (loosely) quote the WSJ op-ed this weekend to Gov. Huckabee:

"Never get in a public fight with someone lesser known -- it raises their status and lowers yours" (re: Huckabee v. Democrat-Gazette).

I read something applicable this morning,

To (loosely) quote the WSJ op-ed this weekend to Gov. Huckabee:

"Never get in a public fight with someone lesser known -- it raises their status and lowers yours" (re: Huckabee v. Democrat-Gazette).

That is SO true. S&C only denigrates itself by trying so hard to beat this guy. if it goes all the way to a jury S&C still loses even if it wins.

Charney made some missteps - but he is young, somewhat naive, perphaps idealistic, but being brave in the face of enormous fear.

Let's face it - he is bringing to the forefront an issue that is long overdue for attention. Whether it is anti-gay harrasment or just plain old abusiveness.

Associates have been terrified of sticking up for their right to be treated like human beings at some large firms because of the repercussions of taking appropriate action to stop it.

It is a cultural ill that needs to be addressed.

If Charney's particular mistreatment is the catalyst - then so be it.

The Partners doing the abusing were most likely abused themselves as associates or they are just assholes - either way it needs to stop.

The issue I have with the Charney case is that S&C did not do anything about his complaints for many months. That is intolerable.

S&C had many chances to fix the situation but they did not - and now they want to play hard ball? What ever happened to the values of respect, honesty, and fairness. Will S&C learn the hard way about the importance of those values?

Legal brillance/hard work, and deceny are not mutually excluive.

4:24 makes sense to me. I also cannot get over the fact that if S&C was so worried about him going public with their papers and stuff... why did it take them 3 whole weeks to get a TRO? It's not as if they would have been unfamiliar with such things. Even if they were looking into things, that was already something they would have knows about. Guess we all can just speculate until the jury knocks on the door but personally, I think Lat superimposing H (which is what anyway? Harold? Hershel? Harvey? WHAT) Rodgin's face on the Queen caused it.

The longer this goes on... the less regard I have for S&C. Not becuase Charney is perfect (far from it) but b/c they should be above this. They are not looking tough to their clients. They are looking like a firm embroiled and vulnerable. If I was a client there, I'd be less likely then ever to keep my business there with the way things keep escalating.

ok there are definitely PR people on this board

I still wanna see the posts that didn't stick around from the other night. Were they team Aaron, Team S&C or just drivel about the superhuman feats of Atty Zach?

One of the most interesting comments I've read on the Charney case is the speculation that Charney was in the closet, or at least not openly gay at the firm.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/01/musings_on_char.html

To my mind, this theory might explain the Krautheimer comment. In this light, Krautheimer is calling Charney gay (the bend over comment) as an insult, but as insult he hurls at people he assumes are straight (the shit comment is gay/straight neutral, it only looks otherwise in light of the bend over comment, and if you assume Krautheimer knew Charney was gay) .

If Charney were openly gay to Krautheimer, Krautheimer had to have been colossally stupid to have made the comment he did.

Just speculation, but thought it was interesting.

David,

Maybe ask Charney if he was openly gay at the firm?

If at first you don't succeed, you're not Zach Fasman.

So, who is right? ABC or S&C? They may BOTH be....Yes, S&C has done so much to support the equality of lesbian/gay/bisexual people in its workplace and it should be commended for doing so in light of the pervasive animus that still exists against such people even in this day and age, BUT that doesn't rule out the possibility that one or more of the 162 HUMAN BEINGS who are partners at S&C--and who individually and collectively constitute S&C--said and/or did things that are "wrong" and perhaps legally actionable...If the factual allegations in the Complaint are true, then perhaps those partners should be disciplined regardless of whether the comments/actions were directed at a man/woman/gay/lesbian/associate/paralegal/secretary (after all, doesn't fed/state/NYC anti-discrim law require that all employees be free of a sexually hostile environment?--telling anyone to bend over and enjoy it would seem sexually demeaning to anyone)...And of course a partnership has greater incentive to discipline its own when such comments/actions are legally actionable (about which an employment law expert can advise this blog). Conversely, if the allegations in the Complaint are NOT true, then legal ramifications likely should ensue. Personally, I hope this matter settles quickly and amicably so that both parties can move on and the hurting can end.

Steve,

I am sure they are both right. But right about what?

The fact that S&C has supported some of its gay attorneys has no bearing on how Charney was treated by the attorneys he mentions in his Complaint. This is not about 162 partners but about a few attorneys.

AND the problem was not addressed by management after months of complaining by Charney.

I think the sad part about this whole ordeal is the way it will likely affect the actions of attorneys. I know I, for one, will likely be very hesitant about opening up and befriending any attorneys at my firm (I start in the fall), because I don't feel like ending up a subject of, or cannon fodder in, someone's silly workplace discrimination complaints. I mean, come on -- making a joke about Canadians? And as for homosexuals in particular, I have no problem with them, but I will probably be less likely to befriend any of them for fear of having something I say or do end up on the wrong end of a complaint.

1:45pm

Note: in one of Loyola 2L's commments, he said something to the effect that "I would love to work for S&C despite [alleged] abusive enviroment in return for the big bucks and prestige."

Junior Partner

David:

Please us some real scoops tomorrow.

5:31,

That's the most persuasive theory I've heard yet. People often use gay vernarcular to insult straight people, without intending to disparage people who actually are gay. Just yesterday a friend told me to "stop acting so gay" when I couldn't make up my mind about where to go for dinner. Maybe using gay comments in that sense is insensitive, but it's certainly not homophobic.

If Krautheimer didn't know Charney was gay, his "bend over" comment would have a similar meaning.

But for Charney, being a closet homosexual, such comments would cut much deeper than Krautheimer could have foreseen. Combine that with a touch of narcissism (and a jihadist disregard for future any future career), and you have a lawsuit.

That's the most persuasive theory I've heard yet. People often use gay vernarcular to insult straight people, without intending to disparage people who actually are gay. Just yesterday a friend told me to "stop acting so gay" when I couldn't make up my mind about where to go for dinner. Maybe using gay comments in that sense is insensitive, but it's certainly not homophobic.

NO, it is still homophobic. Although it is not meant to be disparaging in the same way....

There is no Control button on Zach Fasman's computer. Zach Fasman is always in control.

I wonder if DLat can check the originating IP addresses for the comments. If the hypotheses about S&C and/or PR people posting here are correct, there could be another law firm comment mini-scandal in the making!

The thing is though - if Lat did that he'd end up losing a lot of his visitors, no?

Zach Fasman puts the laughter in manslaughter.

Steve Simoni: Nice to see someone else post here using their real name!

David Lat: I guess at this point those posts from yesterday should be considered lost for good?

FYI: from Paul Hastings to Sullivan and Cromwell (at all hours, different office locations, often for extended durations and "page views,") there has been considerable activity on my blog since the first day of this story. Virtually every BIGLAW IP address has shown up to read whatever "news" there is on this case, usually "referred" by a google search, which proves, as we know, that there is intense interest especially on the inside at the firms now involved. Still no apparently hits from the super-prestigious, elite, website-free firm of Gallion and Spielvogel. :-)

Notice how Loyola2L stopped posting as soon as he was accused of being an S&C plant.

6:02,
While you're at it, be sure not to befriend any women or racial or ethnic minorities, since they're more likely to file discrimination complaints. Just socialize with the secretaries, since that's apparently tolerated at S&C (and places like S&C).

6:02, I have a better idea. Why not avoid male, heterosexual, white, non-minorities in your workplace? With all the resultant free time, perhaps spent befriending those most likely to be the victims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, you might help ensure a more civil workplace for all (including yourself).

No, ABC v S&C, should does not teach us all to avoid our gay and lesbian colleagues. It must, however, teach us that there is a lot more work to do to level the playing field. No matter how many Ivy League degrees you have, regardless of the accolades, accomplishments, and successes, discrimination persists. LGBT professionals are one of the last groups to win statutory protection from this kind of misconduct. (And there is still a long way to go: in 33 states it is perfectly legal to fire an employee simply because he or she is gay or lesbian.) The lesson to learn here is that from the moment you begin the first day of your job, you have an opportunity to make a difference. Turn a blind eye to immoral, unethical, unprofesional behavior in the workplace and you, too will be its victims, as our noble profession is tainted not simply by the actions of the few, but by the passive enabling of the many. To be vigilant, engaged, aware, and proactive, is to minimize the need for future lawsuits. We all get a chance to do our small part.

Lavi:

I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a "level playing field." And, even if there were, that is not what ABC is looking for -- complaints like his are trying to elevate gays well above the "heterosexual, white, non-minorities" in the workplace. He wasn't fired because he was gay. He wasn't "run out of dodge," if you will, because he was gay. He wasn't staffed on crappy jobs because he was gay. He was on the receiving end of a few off-color remarks that may or may not have been aimed at making fun of his sexuality.

Now, I can deal with lawsuits targeting employers who truly discriminate against gays by actually firing them or staffing them on crappy jobs. But I think it is absolutely absurd to place legal liability on a few off-color remarks that easily could have been taken out of context, or on the firm's refusal to slap the wrist of a partner who made such comments. If gays truly want a "level playing field," then they need to accept the fact that they, like everyone else, will have to deal with some comments that may end up being offensive to them. That is what happens when you live in a society that values free speech.

I think it's critical whether ABC was OPENLY gay in the workforce. Lat do you know if he was?

to 7:55 a.m. ,

Read Charney's Complaint again - The harassment was not just a few off color remarks. It was pervasive among some of the attorneys he worked with everyday.

How would you like to be harrassed because you are or are preceived to be heterosexual?

The kicker is that Charney complained to the appropriate people at the firm for months and NOTHING was done.

There has to be minimally acceptable work environmnt for people to be able to do their jobs without feeling like s*it everyday.

In fact there are many laws in place re: such.

Is S&C above the law?

Loyola 2L:

I'm a 3L at Fordham, which is similar to Loyola in that it's a regional school. I have a BigLaw job lined up after graduation. Most of my friends also have BigLaw jobs. Some do not, but it's not because they go to Fordham, but rather because they were lazy 1L year and got shitty grades. They can blame it on Fordham until they're blue in the face, but the fact is that they don't have BigLaw jobs because they're lazy and/or stupid.

10:06AM,

Are you sure you're being fair?

What percentage of Fordham students get firm jobs? I don't think more than the top 10% get firm summer jobs out of Loyola. I'll assume it's the same at Fordham.

So let's talk about the other 90%. The "dumb" students, as you call them, who didn't have the prescience to create the pattern of words which happened to stoke the professor's subjective and unpredictable whimsy, you see nothing wrong with bilking them out of a ton of money and their youth, in exchange for a worthless degree? Could they not have done something better with the first three years of their post college life and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of tuition and lost income, for a degree which is worth no more than their college degree?

In my opinion the con which is the sub T-14 law degree is an injustice. I hope my posts have opened you elite graduates' eyes to the other world of law.

And no I'm not some S&C plant as prior posters speculated. Are you people serious?

I'm a 2L at Fordham (not the one who posted before). My impression -- just that, my impression -- is that the top half of the class gets big firm jobs. I only know a handful of people from my 1L section who don't have big firm jobs. Oh and I'm defining "big firm job" pretty loosely as $145,000 or now $160,000 firms. I don't know what percentage of those people without big firm jobs actually wanted them (i.e., they may be public interest people). I'm not sure it's fair to say people don't get big firm jobs because they're stupid, but I do think it's fair to say that those who don't get them and want them tend to be lazy.

Loyola 2L (and Fordham 3L, to a large degree): You both epitomize everything that is wrong with a law student. If your goals going into law school were to secure yourself employment in "biglaw" so you can make some bank and feel superior (not sure why anyone in biglaw would feel superior, though), you are going to the wrong graduate school. People who want to make money go to business school. If you think that top students at top schools (including Fordham) line up panting to go to large firm jobs, you are sorely mistaken. Fordham 3L is oversampling from his selective sample of friends in making claims about who did or did not get Biglaw jobs, and Loyola 2L: Your pathetic whining about getting a law degree from a non-T14 school is getting old. Get a life, get some interests, and go do something which compliments both of them.

Exposing injustice is my interest. If that's OK with you.

"Exposing injustice"? Seriously? You fancy yourself a Rosa Parks or somesuch?

Yikes...

Did I compare myself to Rosa Parks? I really don't see why so many on this board use extreme characterizations. I don't think it's a good tool.

11:08: A lot of people in law school really want a BigLaw job so they can pay off their student loans. I have no interest in working at a big law firm long-term, but I need to do so for a couple of years to pay off my $150,000 in student loans, and then I can do something that interests me. I think a lot of people are panting for BigLaw jobs for that reason.

Loyola 2L: Why did you go to law school?

It's because "exposing injustice" is itself an "extreme characterization." Rosa Parks exposed injustice. Upton Sinclair exposed injustice. You? Not so much.

11:20 That's the question I ask myself every time I realize the limited opportunities this degree provides. Originally I wanted to contribute to the legal profession, but it soon became clear that this privilege is reserved for only students of elite schools.

L 2L: That's a non answer. A law degree is perhaps the most versatile graduate degree out there. You should spend more time figuring that indisputable fact out and exploiting its potential and less time asking the denizens of this forum to pity you.

"The most versatile graduate degree out there." Are you a law school recruiter?

I'll take a break from posting, since you insist. Please let me know when (if ever) I'm allowed to share a thought again.

Nah, I'm just someone who went to a decent law school (top 25), who did pretty well (top 10%), and who was able to do almost whatever I wanted afterwards not because I whined about my plight of not going to a T-14, but I because I was genuinely interested in the law and in learning. I surmise that you went straight from undergrad to law school, which is not surprising, given your abject lack of interest in law school. Post all you want; I wish not to be a censor. Just don't ask people to pity you.

I'm glad you, as a top 10% student, are allowed to contribute to the profession. But why don't you care about the other 90% of students in your school?

I was barely top 10%; I wasn't on any reviews. Of course, every school has a bottom 50%, but that's life. Why are you not in the top 25%? Why are you not putting in the effort to do well? These questions are relevant and not ones relating to why the bottom 90% is allegedly "unable" to be hired by ANYONE.

I'm assuming that most of that 90% is out there making some sort of contribution to the profession, even if it's not their absolute first choice field and perhaps even in the face of some disappointment, rather than whining about it all the freaking time like a Johnny One-Note

So now top 25% is the cutoff? I am top 25% and can assure you it's higher than that at non t-14 schools.

Further, do you really think you were any better than the other 90%? I've received As and A+s in numerous classes and I know my classmates generally studies just as hard, and the only reason I scored the highest is because I happened to magically guess the pattern of words which struck my professor's whimsy. Law school exam grading is highly subjective. Some accuse professors of randomly throwing papers down the stairs and giving the best grades to the ones who fall farthest. Of course this doesn't stop you from asserting an innate right to the top 10% ranking which your received.

I don't whine about it all the time. I've actually accepted my position and wouldn't even have brought it up if not for other posters bringing it up.

L 2L: Your post makes no sense. You are going off on tangents. Your professors' grading habits have no relevance to the fact that you whine about some thirty foot fictional employment-related well into which you have been thrown by virtue of attending a law school and being in the top 25% of your class. In my experience, professors' grading habits vary, but it is indisputable that the better students are getting better grades regardless of the professor and are generally providing work and exam answers of an objectively better nature. My point has been all along, however, that you don't have to be the top of your class at a top law school to GET A JOB YOU WILL LIKE AND BE INTERESTED IN. If you want to work for Wachtell, then yes, my point is invalidated. If you went to law school solely so you could you could work for Wachtell, you should be beaten. If your interests consist of merger agreements and fund prospectuses, then perhaps you will have to be disappointed as well. Just get off your butt. You are a walking advertisement for everyone who can hone into why you're whining and who want to help you, but don't really care that much, either.

This is one of the most degrading parts of the tier 2 con game. Being lectured by top school grads who make themselves feel good by tearing you down further. Sadly it doesn't occur only on message boards. It occurs everytime they see your resume.

anon 11:50.

I think Loyola is as big a whiner as anyone, but I don't see what going straight from undergrad to law school has to do with "appreciating" it. I went straight from college and I think I appreciate it as much as anyone else.

It was pretty clear that the vast majority of my fellow law school classmates who were just not that interested in being a lawyer or in the law itself came straight from undergrad. Of course, that doesn't preclude the vast numbers of law school students who appreciated law school also coming straight from undergrad.

Loyola 2L: It seems that all you do is sit on this board and whine about your miserable plight. Maybe if you spent less time here whining you could start getting better grades.

By the way, S&C does hire people from Loyola, so maybe if you just worked harder your "dream job" can be within reach.

See, e.g., http://sullcrom.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=573

and

http://sullcrom.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=532

Actually, Loyola 2L's analysis regarding Charney isn't too far off the mark. I know. FWIW, I'm a mid-90s ivy league law grad in mid-/large-law Boston, with more than my fair share of employment discrimination cases under my belt. Rightly or wrongly, Charney is about to learn the definition of steamrollering. I don't know specifics, but I'd be willing to wager that S&C has made up its mind to "teach him a lesson". And it will be very, very painful.

12:37 PM has a self-proclaimed ability to decide what people are interested in.

L 2L: As the writer of the 12:37 PM post, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Loyola 2L: for all the bullsh*t you write about Loyola not allowing you to "to contribute to the profession" you ignore so many examples around you which disprove your complaint.

Example 1: Seth Aronson, a LOYOLA GRAD, is the managing partner at OMM. http://omm.com/webcode/navigate.asp?nodeHandle=31&idContent=1487

Example 2: Alejandro Mayorkas is the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and is currently a partner in O'Melveny & Myers LLP's Los Angeles office. Funny, he is also a LOYOLA GRAD. http://omm.com/webcode/navigate.asp?nodeHandle=31&idContent=2957

I'm not trying to sell Loyola here, but I am just giving you concrete examples of people who "contribute to the profession" despite the curse or handicap of attending a sub-"T-14" school.

12:48. Not to stay on this topic, but those two aren't examples ("e.g."), they're the complete set.

12:57. I didn't say no one from tier 2 schools made it, just that very very few do. So few that it's not worth it. Do a search at S&C for Loyola Law School, and the same for say Columbia (Charney's school.) Same for OMM.

You guys really need to get off this topic.

Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go now? The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! I don't care how.

L 2L: If you wanted to back up the assertion you just made, you could not have picked a worse example. Search Columbia Law School in OMM's LA Office and see how many hits you get. About 10. Search Loyola Law School in OMM's LA Office and see how many hits you get. Oh, I count about 30. Hmmm...
.

L 2L: why don't you just drop out of law school and get a job then? You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last.

Oops, my bad. I thought Loyola 2L posted the 1:02 p.m. comment.

Sorry, Loyola, S&C will motherfark Charney and will take great, sadistic pleasure in doing so. I don't buy the cost-benefit analysis; if S&C were a publicly traded corp. then maybe; but litigation expenses over at Paul not-White will simply be the price of salving S&C partners' bruised egos. After all, $2m is only what? 1% of S&C profits? Frankly, if I were in the S&C management, I'd happily budget $2m to put the screws to anyone who posted my firm's partnership agreement. And that's the general consensus of my colleagues, too.

It's not that we're unsympathetic about the annoying and off-color comments ABC received. But bad taste ≠ hostile work environment.

Oh, and don't be so defensive about Loyola. Where I practice (in Boston) some of the best damn lawyers I've seen come out of Suffolk U. And 5-10 yrs. out of law school, nobody gives a damn any more about your grades or where you went to law school.

-- ET

I'm not defensive. I just wish 200 resume submissions would have resulted in just one interview. I can't believe how interested everyone is in my tier 2 plight. What's the fascination? Please drop it already.

The fascination is due to the logical fallacy you are committing by ascribing your lack of interviews to the tier of your law school, rather than to items/qualities in (or missing) from your resume.

1:16. You must be new. I'm top 25% and my resume is fine. It's actually pretty good. Just not good enough to get an interview out of a tier 2 law school.

I don't know why you would insist on pushing the idea that "the tier of your law school" doesn't have a huge impact on your ability to get an interview, which is either the naive hope of a tier 2 0L or among the most intellectually dishonest thing I have ever heard.

Are you applying to large firms in NY? Of course you won't get any interviews. As an equivalent 2L at Brooklyn Law or Cardozo (similar schools to Loyola), you would have gotten some interviews, but you decided to go to school in LA, not NY.

Are you applying to firms in LA? You are leaving out relevant details. The tier of your law school matters much less if you are competing for jobs in the geographical market in which the law school is known and respected.

Loyola,
Didn't you research law schools when you were applying. I'm a 2L as well, and I knew exactly what I was getting into. I knew the numbers of who got interviews etc. If my only options were schools that required me to be in the top 10% to even have a shot at an interview, then I wouldn't have went to law school. So even if what you say is true (which I don't think it is), you have no one to blame but yourself for going to Loyola. No one forced you.

1:36. That's not true. Don't, for one second, believe any tier 2 recruiter who tells you that you're on equal footing with top schools, as long as you stay in your local market. That's one of their favorite lines. Of course I applied to LA firms.

1:37. Honestly I don't want to get into all of this again. Your question was asked and answered like three times before.

Let's all drop it. I've accepted my tier 2 lack of opportunities and am OK with it.

apparently you aren't ok with it since you continually bring it up. Also, if you were naive enough to fall for a law school's recruiting hype and not do your own investigation, you have no one to blame but yourself.

But you keep on trying to blame your school, blame your profs (who require a secret pattern of words to get an A) and blame everyone else.

apparently you aren't ok with it since you continually bring it up. Also, if you were naive enough to fall for a law school's recruiting hype and not do your own investigation, you have no one to blame but yourself.

But you keep on trying to blame your school, blame your profs (who require a secret pattern of words to get an A) and blame everyone else. No one pities you on this board, so stop pitying yourself.

I've accept the brunt of the blame in numerous old posts.

So, if I can recap:

You are top 25%, your resume is good, you applied to 200 firms, and you got zero interviews.

What % of those 200 are LA firms?

About 45%. Scary to think there is enough information in my numerous posts to completely out me.

You applied to 90 firms in the LA area with your stats and got zero interviews? Either you are blatantly lying about one or several of the established facts, or your assessment of your resume is wildly off-mark. Find one other person in your situation (top 25%) at Loyola who applied to the same number of LA firms.

lol. Yes it's that bad. I know of a top 20% student who went interviewless. You guys at good schools have no idea how good you have it.

I think you are secretly hoping some biglaw partner will be reading one of these boards, pity you, email you and offer you a job.

lol. No I know how the real world works thank you.

L 2L: You are the exception, rather than the rule. Loyola places a good many grads at good firms in the SoCal area.

2:10 You know this how? If you're a hopeful 0L I understand why you want to feel that way, but . . .

I'm still laughing about the "you're hoping a partner will see your posts and offer you a job line." I now expect one of you to impersonate one and do just that.

I went to UCLA law. I know the market. You are full of it.

L2L

From your posts, looks like you need to reevaluate what "contributing to the profession" means.

Big salary is, admittedly, nice but has nothing to do w/ contributing to the profession. You get paid very well for a lot of doc review for faceless corporations (not that there's anything wrong with that...).

If you equate salary, expensive office space, or "prestige" with "contributing to the profession" this bout of soul searching will likely be good for you.

Best of luck and try to finish up strong.

Loyola2L's comments are annoying.
Maybe he/she is a plant to distract.

Back to the Charney case.

This guy seems like he was a brilliant young lawyer and a rising star.

His work environment became intolerable [it was much more than a few off color remarks according to the Complaint].

Why should someone who busted his butt in College, law School, and for S&C - then find himself in an intolerable work environemnt at S&C b/c he is gay?
And then have management do nothing to fix it after he complained for many months about it.

It is flat wrong [assuming the allegations are true].

It looks to me like S&C is wrong here - and might does not make right.

What happened to all the values we learn as children - honesty, integrity, fairness, and following the law?

S&C should play hard ball with the people at S&C who did the harrassing, ignored Charney's complaints for months, etc.

Who would want to work at a place that allows the type of behavior that is alleged in the Complaint?

Work at a high pressure firm is difficult enough as it is - but add to that the enormous discomfort of being treated like s*it because of a particular trait - and being falsely accused of caring on an "unnatural" relationship with a colleague.

Forget it.

Are you serious? Why would I lie? Keep in mind the size of LLS. I think it puts out almost twice as many people each year as UCLA. Also keep in mind that employers are allowed to 100% pre-screen resumes at Loyola's OCI, unlike at your school. Top 10% at Loyola will get a bunch of interviews and jobs as I understand, and that's enough to create a presence in the SoCal market. My whole point, throughout, has been "what about the other 90%?"

Why would a UCLA law grad be so interested in this topic?

2:22, the same applies to any position of influence. Whether professor, an influential public service position or biglaw. They all go to top school grads.

I really wouldn't continue to talk about this if you guys didn't continue to bring it up.

I call BS, L2L...you bring it up and whine about it at every opportunity, whether or not it's on topic. THAT'S why people keep harping on it.

Loyola 2L,

It is supply and demand. The top law firms have enough top graduates to pick from. You can still get a job but just not at a top firm.

Just like those who score below a certain percentage on the LSAT will not get into a top Law School - even if they could succeed there.

If you want to be part of the "prestigious" then you have to do what it takes to get there. Many people do.

I don't get your posts - are you a plant to distract from discussion of the Charney case?

L 2L: You not only harp and whine about your plight, but your facts are off. Only academia is nearly exclusively reserved for top law school grads. If I didn't have the feeling that the list of the firms you applied to consisted of the AmLaw200, I would have some more sympathy. You probably paid your subscription to the Vault and matched that up with AmLaw's list as the sole criterion of the list of firms you applied to. Sad...

What is it you want to do for your career? If all you want is to make money, you still have time to send in apps for business school for next year. Get started.

L2L: your summer after your second year is not the last opportunity you will have to secure a BigLaw job...plenty of firms look for 3Ls at Fall OCI. Just get off this blog and study already. I am sick of hearing about it. If anything you are undermining your chances of getting a BigLaw job by wasting so much time here.

I'm doing all those things. I'm just, I think realistically, not expecting much from these efforts.

I applied to every firm in NALP, which I think covers the entire Am200.

Get out of law school. Nothing I've read in any of your posts has come close to suggesting that you either want to be a lawyer or have any interest in law. You seem to be concerned with money, prestige, rankings and other superficial trappings. For your own sake, you should get out now before you actually have to practice. Go to business school. Go. Go!

L 2L: do you have any plans for what you are going to do in three months (Summer 2007)? Are you hoping that if you complain enough here, someone will offer you a job so will just shut up?

The only thing my posts complain about is the lack of a shot at a decent legal job.
How could you conclude that disappointment due to not finding a job indicates a lack of interest in law? Doesn't it indicate otherwise?

If you were interested in law, you would have applied to firms that matched your interests, not ones you picked off of Vault's list. I guarantee you would have had more success. However, if your definition of success and a "decent legal job" is one that is by definition biglaw, you are hopelessly hopeless.

Loyola 2L,

If you really want to work at a "top firm" then graduate form Law School - work a few years and then get an LLM and graduate in the top of your LLM calss.

Or just shut up and take the best job you can get and work your way up the vast majority of people do.

What do you want people here to say?