It's about bloody time. Seriously. I'd never join an association whose president who was so quick to judge, so actively hostile towards prospective members, so reflexively defensive and nasty, and, most importantly, so prone to terrible, terrible (pre)judgment. Good riddance!

This unfortunate episode has come to the appropriate conclusion, albeit shockingly late in the game. I am startled to learn that the Board was unaware of both the public statements of their own "first vice-president" and the controversy that followed, by the time of the Board meeting at which Scheich was elected president.
Moving on, it is important to note that attorney members of the LeGal, law students, and other members of the LGBT community expressed their concern and criticsm after the ABC interview. Those who spoke out, and I was one of them, should be proud of what we accomplished, not because a hard-working dedicated member of an important organization resigned, but because together with Mr. Scheich and LeGal we have affirmed the importance of standing behind Aaron Charney, rather than abandoning him before he has had his proverbial day in court. Assuming the truth of his allegations, Mr. Charney has taken tremendous risk, and shown exceptional courage by bringing this lawsuit, and emulating that example, in the spirit of Mr. Scheich's final missive, all members of the profession should continue to reject any homophobia, even when doing so means criticizing our allies.

Not to diminish Charney's complaint in any way, but I would give anything to work for Korry and Krautheimer at Sullivan and Cromwell, even with the harassment. It's a small price to pay for S&C.

Loyola 2L:

I would suggest that you study more and try to get all As this year, rather than lamenting here about the lack of job opportunities and how much you would like to work for alleged disagreeable people(s) at S&C.

5th Year (yes, that means I have actually practiced law 5 years more than you have)

It is not surprising to read the response of Loyola 2L, given the how coveted are associate positions at S&C and similar firms. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that with many chasing after so few high paying jobs, it seems, almost reflexively, better to have the job AND the harrassment than not to have the job. But it always comes back to the same place: do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution? What is a professional career worth if we sell ourselves to the highest bidder? In the end, nothing.

2L Loyola:

Of the 5th years left in my dept, there is a Hofstra grad who is really outperforming many of Harvard and Columbia grads.Based on past history, the firm is likely to promote 1 to 3 to partnership from my dept, and I would bet that the Hofstra man is one of them.

"Assuming the truth of his allegations, Mr. Charney has taken tremendous risk, and shown exceptional courage by bringing this lawsuit,"

And assuming he had wings and a bill and a sailor cap, I'd call him Donald.

It is NONSENSE that the Board was unaware of the controversey at the time they elected this guy president. I don't believe it for a moment. Look at the timeline. The letters were e-mailed to LeGaL on January 18 and 19, and the Board elected him president on the night of the 22nd. It is unbelievable that the only board member who saw the letters was scheich. The other members HAD to have seen them. Cover up, cover up, cover up.

"Assuming the truth of his allegations, Mr. Charney has taken tremendous risk, and shown exceptional courage by bringing this lawsuit"

Or more likely, "exceptional opportunism," as it is unlikely that gays are discriminated against at S&C. Being gay at a top firm is an asset in this day and age.

Another classic, "it's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the allegations that is important."

Loyola 2L –

I understand the frustration of not having a job (which explains why I went to law school), but the novelty of working at a prestigious law firm wears off in about a month and a half if you’re working for a**holes. It’ll make you hate being a lawyer and just wait for the day you can pay off your loans, afford a down payment on a house and put the mistake of going to law school behind you forever.

The guy is a narcissistic loon, but one of those had to bite S&C in the a$$ at some point. He has them over the coals, because while his allegations are probably demonstrably false, the $hit that would come out about S&C in discovery and later at trial is most likely too much heat for S&C to take.

Anonymous 9:19: "...while his allegations are probably demonstrably false,". Um, care to share why you believe this?

Nah, even S&C is smart enough to know that they can't settle and have to win on the merits, thanks to the credulous gossip whores who influence law school minds. $hit coming out in discovery is nowhere near as bad as letting Mr. Aaron "Gimme 5" Charney winning this one.

How can you make this statement? Are you at the firm?

If that guy is writing snatchy e-mails to gay law students, he definitely had no place being prez of LeGal. What a dick.

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

That's easy. Steven Seagal.

Maybe S&C is above the law? :)

His apology is to "the plaintiff." Did he forget Charney's name all of a sudden? It reminds me of Clinton's "that woman".

There are only a few possibilities, re LeGal's ignorance of the controversy. One is that the e-mails that were received, I understand, by Daniel Schaffer, LeGal's full time staff person, were then forwarded not to every board member, but only to Jack Scheich. Or, they all got copies of the original complaints, and didn't read them. It's impossible to believe that the Board had copies (even only those published on the Internet) every email Jack Scheich sent in reply to criticsm AND the original ABC News statement and still ignored it all. On the other hand, I sent email to Jack, so obviously he didn't share those exchanges with the Board. Something is fishy, I agree. Also, knowing of the impending vote that would place him in the position of President, you would think that from the moment this controversy erupted Scheich would have contacted each Board member himself to be sure they were aware of it.

S&C is not above the law. It is a law unto itself. Get it straight.

I have a close friend on the Le-GAL board. It was not until after Scheich was elected. Once that meeting was concluded, he said, "oh, by the way..." Just because everyone at LeGAL may have received the emails about the suit, does not mean they were planning on replying immediately. They were taking time to put together a well thought out reply. Scheich's reply was done without any board knowledge or approval.

This is truly the case of one bad apple.

Wait a second... so they received emails, but weren't planning on "replying" immediately. But they still felt it was ok to go ahead and vote him into the office of President? If they recognized that this was grave enough to require a "well though out reply" why did they rush to place the man who wrote all the emails in the position of President? Alternatively, if they received the emails and didn't think they were important enough to impact their decision regarding Scheich's future role, why did they need so much time to develop their response? And why did his resignation lag the response by so many days? That really doesn't make a lot of sense.
It seems they knew they had a (small problem?) mess on their hands, trusted Jack, figured they could distance themselves from/end the controversy with their statement, and leave him as President. Remember that after the Board's statement, Scheich still tried to convince Aaron Charney that this was simply a matter of being "misquoted"?
I will also point out that it is a shame that today, in LeGal's regular email to its membership, entitled "LeGal: Various Announcements and Job Postings" there is no mention of Scheich's resignation or his posting of a letter to the membership on the website, nor is there a link to it. Nothing at all, though I did receive it via email at 5:55 p.m. yesterday from Dan Schaffer. Did that email go out to the entire membership? I hope so. If not it was another missed opportunity to show accountability and move on.

I am a LeGaL member and on their e-mail list, and nope, I never got an e-mail about any of this. No e-mail about the LeGaL statement and no e-mail about the Scheich resignation. It is an outrage that the LeGaL Board operates in this fashion. They should come clean - publicly and to all members - not just those who go to their website. I promise this will not die down - many many rumors are afloat about the Board and their grave misstep. If they want to try to regain some credibility and hoe to have a successful dinner this year, they MUST disclse all to the membership by way of an e-mail of explanation. Or at least an e-mail directing members to the LeGaL website. It is now clear to me that the whole Board put Scheich in power fully aware of the controversey. They must own up to it or all resign. Shame. Shame.

Why is Scheich still on the LeGaL Board in any capacity?!? The ethical standards of an organization are determined by the behavior of its Board. Through its actions a Board decides what behavior will and will not be tolerated. And, those actions supercede ethical statements. Allowing Scheich to continue his pomposity from the front page of the LeGaL website is just more salt in the wound.

I agree with the above, LeGal has not taken responsibility. The fact that they want us to believe they didn't know about the controversy is disconcerting, because they should have known, and Scheich should have been the one to bring it to their attention immediately, rather than wait until the end of the meeting at which he was elected President. He should have told them about it and called an emergency meeting the minute his ABC interview statement produced the first critical response.