Brokeback Lawfirm: An Insider’s View (Part 1)
Here’s some juicy gossip about the case that everyone can’t stop talking about: Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Some of this information has previously appeared elsewhere, but this letter nicely synthesizes everything.
It’s long, so we’ll post it in two parts. Here’s the first installment:
While I’ve hesitated until now to write, your coverage of Aaron Charney’s lawsuit has been extremely entertaining, if often wildly inaccurate.Like many current and former associates at S&C, I’m torn between my indifference towards Aaron (who was standoffish at best and somewhat obnoxious at worst) and my recognition of some genuinely negative aspects of the firm as portrayed in his complaint. But ultimately I have to come down on the side of the firm, because from where I sit Aaron’s story — while it may be peppered with, or “larded”, with some actual facts — doesn’t really paint a picture of discrimination or retaliation.
First of all, I think the idea of S&C being anti-gay as an institution is completely laughable. I’ve even heard fellow associates express concern that — all other things being equal — being straight is a liability when it comes to making partner. I’ve never heard a homophobic, racist or sexist comment, although I’ve heard rumors of a few. It’s rumored as well that Aaron himself made a homophobic comment or two in his more deeply closeted days. Who knows. Maybe I just inspire caution in this regard.
The letter continues after the jump.
We’ve placed material from the letter in block quotes, with our commentary below.
Our correspondent writes:
In fact, only a few of the folks on 28th floor I know knew — or even suspected — he was gay. Almost none of the more junior associates even knew who he was or that he worked on the floor, because he was simply never to be seen out from behind his or Gera Grinberg’s office door. Aaron’s office sat entirely empty for the better part of a YEAR at one point.
This does raise the question — not fully fleshed out in the existing papers — of whether and how Eric Krautheimer knew Aaron Charney is gay, when he knew it, and with what degree of certitude.
The letter continues:
Let’s talk “unnatural relationship” here. Nobody at S&C cares if you’re gay or straight. As I know from personal experience, the firm has a standard way of addressing intra-office romance — there’s a basic talk that goes like “well, we prefer that this sort of thing not happen, but since it has, best of luck to you both, and from now on you need to work on different matters, and it is especially inappropriate for [more senior lawyer] to supervise [more junior lawyer] in any way. Oh, and try not to rub anyone’s nose in it.” Basic common sense. No implication that anything is unnatural — as Aaron’s complaint outlines, the firm has long been tolerant of this sort of thing (unlike, say, Cravath).So how was Aaron and Gera’s relationship “unnatural”? Without descending to calling Aaron “lazy” — which is an absurd word to describe even the least-hard-working associate at S&C — there are obvious and serious management issues presented by a midlevel associate who will go to great lengths to work exclusively with one senior associate and one partner. For instance, how do you compare his evaluation to others’, when he is being exclusively evaluated by the same people year after year, and everyone else is getting run through the gantlet of all the partners — harsh, kind and indifferent? How do you deal with someone who — as backed up by his perennial supervisors — is typically “too busy” to pitch in when big crunch situations roll around?
Goodness knows that had to be a cozy situation. It’s always a bit nerve-wracking to start working with a new partner or a new associate. But no matter how nice this was for Aaron, Gera and Steve Kotran, it sucked for everyone else, and as far as I know, the partnership didn’t have a clear strategy for how to deal with this “unnatural” situation. They did know how to deal appropriately with a romantic relationship (gay or straight), but here the parties (probably quite accurately) denied any such relationship.
This has been covered before. But there’s more about Charney and Grinberg’s alleged standoffish-ness:
And then there’s the social aspect. S&C is not exactly a cozy feel-good firm, but there are a reasonable number of social events. Attendance is not mandatory, but is… encouraged. Aaron and Gera simply stopped attending these some time ago. Aaron and Gera never left their doors open, and they never informally socialized in the hall. To the extent they “socialized” it was with each other (only). Again, the firm does not have a traditional approach for dealing with such consistently anti-social behavior.So what do we have? Here’s what I imagine happened: a bunch of very busy partners, who are also trying to get their own mountains of work done, behave in a variety of individual ways. Some just ignore the situation.
Some complain in person and in email to the other partners. Others take matters into their hands, and attempt to apply informal pressure on Aaron and Gera.
This next part is especially thought-provoking:
If (and this is a big if — after his performance so far I wouldn’t trust Aaron to tell me the time) Eric [Krautheimer] made the remarks attributed to him, or any similar remarks, my guess is that it would have been in the context of (a) presuming that Aaron was straight, and (b) attempting to use homophobia as a way of nudging him out of Gera’s orbit.Appropriate? No.
Gender based harassment? Attenuated, but there’s a colorable argument.
A sign of raging homophobia at S&C? Hardly.
Very interesting; we hadn’t thought of the interaction in this way before.
And the remarks about an “unnatural” relationship — brought into this context, they make perfect (non-homophobic) sense. THEY HAD AN UNNATURAL RELATIONSHIP, just not in the sexual sense. The firm would have had a much easier time dealing with the situation if they’d actually been wildly fornicating behind those office doors.Oh, and if you think that Alexandra Korry is the kind of shy, blushing girl who would use “unnatural” to mean “taking it up the ass,” well, you haven’t been reading the comments very carefully.
That last sentence is especially perceptive. Based on what we’ve heard about her, Korry doesn’t seem like one to traffic in euphemism.
Update: The rest of the letter, in which our source discusses Charney’s claims of retaliation, can be accessed by clicking here.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Brokeback Lawfirm (scroll down)
(38) Comments
Comments
Can someone at S&C please give me a job?
All of that sounds very plausible, and yet legally speaking there's probably no difference. Krautheimer used an impermissible homophobic comment for a certain purpose, and golly gee wouldn't you know it, Charney was gay. The lawsuit doesn't take a hit.
But yeah, maybe if Charney weren't so socially awkward he might have realized the meaning from the get-go and none of this would have happened. But then where would we be?
The whole Charney/Grinberg relationship is fascinating! How great would it be if Grinberg were brainwashing Charney or they were involved in some weird cult? Maybe I've been watching too much Law & Order, but I think this whole case turns on what was going on between the two of them.
Though the lawsuit doesn't take a hit," - there's no viable discriminatory hostile environment lawsuit there anyway. One or two ambiguous discriminatory comments does not sustain a hostile environment claim (so look out for ABC's deposition testimony to magically come up with a whole lot more allegations).
Why is it a crime to close one's door? and why is it a crime to not attend firm social events. You already spend so much damn time at work, do you really HAVE to go to social events or else be thought of as a leper in your firm?
I feel sorry for that guy Gera. Even Charney sold him out, and the firm seems to be lumping him with Charney.
This letter is totally on the mark. I will leave off saying one thing. We all dislike Aron and we all dislike Korry. Who are "we"? I give you 3 guesses and the 1st two dont count.
As a summer at S&C, I would like to say one thing. All the summer's were great and of course we all dicussed the associates that were giving us work to do (Yes, at S&C the summer's do really work sometimes.) I heard plenty of comments but i NEVER heard any complaints that reached the level that the summer's were making about Aron. Furthermore, Aron was the ONLY associate that we avoided going out to lunch with. The word among the summer's about Aron (even when it came to lunh) was, "stay away, he's arrogant prick." So discrimination or not, I don't know. I do know that Aron obviously has issues and I'm not ready to believe that it was a total coincidence that the known jerk of the firm was discriminated against.
One more point. I found S&C to be more open and accomdating to the gay and lesbian lifestyle, than i gind law school to be. We bought our partners to summer events and I never had the slightest funny feeling at all. I'm not saying that S&C partner's are not jerks, but for the firm to be called on its treatment of gays and lesbians is just unreal.
wow to 12:32
What Gera did at S&C -- tried to stay away from as many people as possible there -- was the only way to survive there for as long as he did -- and he started a day before 9/11 so his first two years at the firm weren't pretty -- there was a lot of document review to be done by General Practice (corporate) associates, and that's why there was such a system of favoritism there -- people were doing all they can (ie. kissing as many asses as possible) to get off the doc review, b/c that meant getting "good work" and having any chance to survive. I knew Gera on a personal level and he is a very nice outgoing guy -- who apparently did not want to socialize that much at the firm with people he did not know well. Once he got to know me, he was very nice and helped me with advice re jobs etc.
I did not know Aaron personally, but we all know that an image one projects at work is different from one's true personality. it was certainly the advice I was given.
as for working together -- it wasn't Aaron's choice, and probably Gera's either. People get stuck on deals and then get staffed based on partner's whim, not based on any training/evaluation/mentoring considerations. They worked together because the had to. There is absolutely no reason to accuse them of anything "unnatural". And if Krautheimer said what Aaron says he said -- whether homophobic or not -- was totally not acceptable, and everybody knows that.
Please don't post here for all world to read something that embarasses other people. Unless you are Gera's good friend or relative, you have no idea who he is. He was (is) one of the nicest people at S&C M&A department (together with Dan Petroff and other Canadians who left), and you do not have any right to berate him here.
12:32 - did you actually work at Sullivan & Cromwell. Because your post is filled with so many grammatical and spelling errors, it seems highly unlikely.
BORING. Your Shanetta posts were much more entertaining. What happened to our favorite diva?
Perhaps there are fewer SYC stories because she is better behaved these days?
It would be interesting to see if people like Cutlar, Krautheimer and Korry act differently in the days or weeks following blog or media coverage of their (alleged) misbehavior.
I hope the writer is prepared to be deposed. The ultimate decision on the motion to compel (the OP, ATL, anyone else?) may be the stuff of civpro case books.
I wish I could file a motion to compel an offer.
Re: 12:36's claim about ABC and GG working together, the explanation sounds highly implausible given what everybody else has said about their relationship. showing up at meetings as a duo, working in the same office all the time, etc. does all the information out there really sound like they were just staffed on a lot of deals together and not actively avoiding having to work with other people?
Did I really work at S&C over the summer? Well.....I was at the summer even at the Museum of Natural history. I was there at the cobacobana for Sheryll Crow. I was on the kick off event on the cruise ship. So...... I guess I was a summer at S&C, notwithstanding my spelling errors.
I refuse to believe that S&C hires summers who uses incorrect ellipses! I can live with typos and even the misplaced possessives, but I just can't abide by the "....."!!!!
It's "summers." "Summer's" would mean belonging to the summer. "Summers'" would mean belonging to the summers.
Oh, 2:10, I love it. You know posting that way is going to drive L2L to his/her imminent aneurysm.
Classic.
12:32 and 2:10 - there is no way you were a summer at s&c and there is also no way you go to a t50 law school. your grammar is beyond horrendous and your syntax is awful.
Typos aside, the "S&C summer" is a troll... no gay person (the writer talks about "bringing our partners" to events) would refer to themselves as living "the gay and lesbian lifestyle." That Ann Coulter-Speak.
Perhaps 12:32/2:10 is the pampered scion of a foreign potentate. ESL + nepotism would explain it all.
Yes, there are typos and then there are habits. His or her egregious grammar and spelling mistakes are tell-tale habits. But I would believe he or she is an S&C summer.
S&C took their summers to Sheryl Crow? That's the best they could do, when Madonna was touring last summer? That's hysterical.
I think this letter makes a great point about the "unnatural relationship" allegation. Assuming it was even said (and I'm beginning to doubt ABC's credibility) - it's a stretch to twist the remark into a homophobic slur. In what law firm can a mid-level associate choose forever what senior associate they are assigned to? It's very unusual. Instead of called the relationship "unnatural," if the partner called ABC and GG's relationship, "unusual" or "different" or "unacceptable," ABC (and his supporters) would still have no trouble labeling it as a sinister thinly veiled homophobic slur. But by law firm standards, ABC and GG apparently had a very unusual, unnatural, and strange relationship, which has nothing to do with whether one of them or not is gay.
This case reminds me of that movie "contact" when they discussed Occam's razor - the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. If someone said that ABC and GG had an "unnatural relationship," it's probably because they did - by working exclusively together. The far less likely explanation seems to be that it's a thinly veiled homophobic slur. After all, GG was also allegedly accused of being part of the "unnatural" relationship, and by all accounts, he's straight - so the comment likely wasn't taking anyone's sexuality (real or perceived) into account.
That's my humble take.
I think this letter makes a great point about the "unnatural relationship" allegation. Assuming it was even said (and I'm beginning to doubt ABC's credibility) - it's a stretch to twist the remark into a homophobic slur. In what law firm can a mid-level associate choose forever what senior associate they are assigned to? It's very unusual. Instead of called the relationship "unnatural," if the partner called ABC and GG's relationship, "unusual" or "different" or "unacceptable," ABC (and his supporters) would still have no trouble labeling it as a sinister thinly veiled homophobic slur. But by law firm standards, ABC and GG apparently had a very unusual, unnatural, and strange relationship, which has nothing to do with whether one of them or not is gay.
This case reminds me of that movie "contact" when they discussed Occam's razor - the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. If someone said that ABC and GG had an "unnatural relationship," it's probably because they did - by working exclusively together. The far less likely explanation seems to be that it's a thinly veiled homophobic slur. After all, GG was also allegedly accused of being part of the "unnatural" relationship, and by all accounts, he's straight - so the comment likely wasn't taking anyone's sexuality (real or perceived) into account.
That's my humble take.
This is another example of how difficult it is to take sides in a dispute among lawyers.
On a side note, Sheryl Crow???? Good god. Firm dinners at Fridays?
S&C did not take the summers to Sherryl Crow. Sherryl came to us. YES, WE HAD OUR OWN PRIVATE CONCERT WITH HER!!
2:50 - did she misspell her name or is that your own ignorance?
I wouldn't brag about a private concert with Sheryl Crow. Especially if it was a small venue; I shudder at what she looks/sounds like in cramped quarters.
2:36/39, "Unnatural" has long been used as a right-wing code word for "against God's will," and is frequently used to describe gay people in a way that the other words you cite do not. The words "unusual" and "unacceptable" just don't have a gay-specific connotation. There's a uniquely homophobic undercurrent to using "unnatural" to describe a gay person's relationship with someone of the same sex (what is "natural" about working at a law firm in the first place?). It's a very particular word choice, and probably one aimed at commenting on the same-sex nature of Charney's and Grinberg's relationship.
I agree with 3:15 - "unnatural" is frequently right wing code for gay relationships. That may be the especially unlucky choice of Korry or said tongue in cheek, but it certainly doesn't feel that way to me.
I was more convinced by the explanation of Krautheimer's comments. What he said definitely rang of a taunt in line with the Ann Coulter school of rhetoric (and just as crude, inappropriate, disgusting, etc). That said, I'm not persuaded to start raising any Krautheimer cash for Charney.
actually, it was pretty amazing. i was never a huge sheryl crow fan, but she blew it out of the water at the event. it was at the copacabana and the acoustics in the room were fantastic.
I'm torn about the phrase "unnatural" - as 3:15 pointed out, it does have these moral connotations that are not associated with "unusual" or "unacceptable." That said, I can also see obsessive law firm partners that take their work too seriously using the language of "God's will" to talk about their work and anything that interferes with it.
Charney making homophobic comments?? WTH? This I definitely want to hear more about
4:37, you're simply "unflappable"
I simply don't buy the Former 28th Floor Associate's arguments about the meaning of unnatural. It is a much larger leap to suggest this meant "outside the normal scheme of things seen at S&C" in the manner argued than to take it at its usual reading in context, which is, as has been said above, a rather old fashioned slander towards or suggestion of homosexuality. The burden will be on S&C's defenders to show why it's the former and not the latter--if this was said at all.
Respecting the repeated remarks about how S&C is a gay-friendly place, this is meaningless in the context of this case. Anyone active in law firm diversity matters knows that the largest of the law firms are now active supporters, on the whole, of a variety of diversity initiatives. Indeed, the largest and most prestigious are formally very affirming. When Ropes Gray worked with Catholic Charities in Boston on a matter that was anti-gay (avoiding gay adoptions), Harvard law students went balistic and the firm withdrew. The "Firm"'s affirming policies and maybe even general environment do not somehow eliminate the possibility for sexual orientation harassment and retaliation. If such policies are enforced, and if the culture is REAL, an environment is created that lowers the probability that such things will happen. But nothing stops one or more partners from committing these anti-gay acts. We've all heard stories about someone witnessing or been around to witness ourselves a partner do something that doesn't square with firm politics or policies. Who's to say Korry, Krautheimer and the gang didn't do just that?
And, while I see the offering up of work with O'Brien as an olive branch to Charney, don't you see how it could also be seen as pandering that is demeaning. A black associate complains of race discrimination, so the firm decides to send a black partner to the associate with work in hand. The road to hell is paved with exceptionally good intentions.
Lex Aquila - I agree with you on all fronts. "Unnatural" has a very homophobic history. I doubt highly that anybody would've used it with respect to a coed working relationship. Even if Korry truly didn't mean it as a slur, "unnatural" has more of a bite to it than "unprofessional" or "far too exclusive."
More Sullivan's PR crap in the form of an "associate" letter! They can never explain doctored evaluations.