Brokeback Lawfirm: An Interview With H. Rodgin Cohen
Recently H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, was interviewed by Chrystia Freeland, the U.S. managing editor for the Financial Times.
The full transcript interview appears here. Of course, the subject of Aaron Charney v. S&C came up:
FT: You’re being accused quite publicly, your firm is, of sexual discrimination against a gay associate, what’s your response and what has it been like? It’s been a very public case.RC: It has been public and that makes it unusual because I have had calls from various law firms saying there, but for the grace of God, go us because we were able to deal with it out of the limelight.
Wow -- we'd love to hear the gory details. For every Charney v. S&C, there are probably five cases like it that get settled quietly, without fuss.
(Speaking of which, whatever happened to Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig?)
RC (continued): Our response, I think, is quite simple. We have made it a real mission to ensure that this is a welcoming and inclusive law firm. And in my view there is no way that we could be engaged in a policy of discrimination in the area of GLT with our record. We have probably more gay and lesbian partners than any firm, anywhere. We tried to make it a welcoming firm for everyone to be totally inclusive and I think if somebody ever sat down and talked to the partners who are here who are gay, lesbian or transgender or our staff or our associates, I think they would all agree that this is a fully inclusive and welcoming place.FT: Do you actually have transgender partners?
RC: To my knowledge there is not a transgender partner but there is transgender staff.
We appreciate Cohen's hedge: "To my knowledge." Because a firm chairman should be hands on, but not TOO hands on.
Transcript: Rodgin Cohen [FT.com]
(31) Comments
"We have probably more gay and lesbian partners than any firm, anywhere."
I'd like to see that backed up with some numbers.
Yeah, even in NY I'm sure PW, Cleary and Skadden have to have them beat. Not to mention west coast places like MoFo.
The number that's been bandied about in various threads on this site is eleven openly-gay or lesbian partners at S&C, which in absolute numbers, it has been asserted, is probably the largest among the biglaw firms in doing business in NYC. But it would be interesting to hear from folks with knowledge about some of the other biglaw firms reputed to be very gay friendly, like MoFo, for instance.
Also, which is more important, the absolute number of openly LGBT partners in a firm, or the percentage of the partnership that is openly LGBT?
Why did Cohen drop the bisexuals out of GLT?
According to Nalpdirectory.com,
S&C NY: Partners (8/110; 7.27%); Associates (9/247; 4%)
Skadden NY: Partners (4/187; 2.14%); Associates (16/520; 3%)
Cleary NY: Partners (3/83; 3.61%); Associates (14/299; 5%)
Cravath: Partners (5/89; 5.62%); Associates (6/274; 2%)
Paul Weiss: Partners (2/96; 2.08%); Associates (14/311; 5%)
Mofo LA: Partners (1/43; 2.33%); Associates (4/54; 7%)
Mofo NY: Partners (3/51; 5.88%); Associates (4/74; 5%)
Mofo SF: Partners (9/102; 8.82%); Associates (3/138; 2%)
On the "whatever happened to" front, whatever happened to the lawsuit against White & Case LA for gay sexual harrassment?
Or the long-rumored "case in waiting" against Heller Ehrman for the same?
Lat,
A few suggestions for brokeback lawfirm.
1. Please do another Charney poll:
"How long will it take to resolve Charney's dispute? (including appeals if it doesn't settle.)
1 month
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
5 years or more
2. Please also find out how Charney is supporting himself, and whether he is looking for other work.
Thank you,
anon90069
The Charney fiasco really will hurt S&C across the board:
(1) At one extreme of the spectrum, hardcore leftist types will really believe that S&C is unfriendly to homosexuals or whatever other groups they so like to put on a pedestal.
(2) Moderate liberals will loose interest in S&C because they will assume that all associates are indiscriminately mistreated.
(3) Centrists and/or apolitical people will find it supremely silly that the firm takes the case of only one homosexual so seriously that even the Chairman of the firm feels the need to make a firmwide speech and speak to the media about the whole thing.
(4) Right-of-center types will be turned off by the extreme P.C. rhetoric about "making everyone feel welcome" and such, when "everyone" really means a very specific subset of minority groups deer to the left.
(5) Conservatives (particularly religious conservatives) would just not feel comfortable in a firm with 11 homosexual partners (though admittedly conservatives probably wouldn't have considered a job at a firm that represents Guantanamo detainees in the first place).
Of course people of all ideologies will still choose S&C if they don't have any offers from comparable firms, but my sense is that this whole affair will really hurt in recruiting, at least for people who have offers from other top 5 or so New York firms (and these are the only kind of candidates that S&C wants).
11:17, S&C is doing better than ever in the M&A world, and will continue to be a top 5 firm.
But how is Charney doing? How is he supporting himself? What if this does take years?
Can any of Charney's friends tell us how he's coping?
P.S. Since Charney has already thrown all the mud in his arsenal, S&C has nothing to lose by fighting. In four years, when Charney is still waiting for the litigation to come to an end, unemployed and with his career in ruins, we'll all appreciate the wisdom of not complaining.
S&C is NOT doing better than ever. For much of the 20th century, S&C was unquestionably one of the top two firms, along with Cravath (and then top 3 when Wachtell came to take prominence). For the past few years, many (most?) of the students at top schools who have offers from any one of Cravath, Davis, STB or Clearly will not choose to take S&C's offer. This is not to say that Charney's case will exacerbate S&C's position, but S&C no longer enjoys the prominent place at the top that S&C once had.
S&C's M&A group is booming. Their 2007 Summer class is as prestigious as ever. They'll be fine.
But how is ABC doing? How is he going to support himself as this litigation drags out?
How many editors of the Harvard Law Review went to S&C in 2007? Not one. In fact, no HLR editor has gone to S&C in years.
Lat, get one of your flunkies up to Bronx Supreme for an update on the GT case!
Fine, S&C is getting crappy associates and their future is in dire straits. Whatever. But admit their business is booming right now. They continue to work on the best deals, for the best clients in the world. Their future is also as bright as ever, but I'll concede your point since it's irrelevant.
Bu again I ask, what Charney doing right now? How is he supporting himself? What is he going to do if the case takes years and years to litigate?
Off t repace the batteries in my wirlss keyboard.
Charney will do fine. He is easily employable by any employer who doesn't mind employees stealing internal documents and sending them to the media to embarras the company and its clients.
How bad is your first name that you choose to go by Rodgin instead?
This interview makes me sad. The founders of S&C and the partners who led the firm to a place of prominence during the last century would be turning in their grave if they knew that the Chairman of the first is now going around talking about, of all things, transgender issues.
11:17 is right. This case turns S&C into a tawdry joke. It will hurt their recruiting, which will hurt the quality of their work farther down the line.
Again, you can hope all you can speculate all you want about how this case is going to hurt S&C, but right now they're doing fine. Their M&A practice is doing better than ever.
But what is Charney doing? How is he going to support himself over years of litigation? How is he paying his mortgage and other expenses? Does he even have health insurance?
And on a separate note, what is Charney doing? How is he going to support himself over years of litigation? How is he paying his mortgage and other expenses? Does he even have health insurance?
In my opinion, this case could hurt S&C in the long run. Poor recruiting this year will have repercussions in the future.
I find it odd that no one has yet asked what Charney is doing? How is he going to support himself over years of litigation? How is he paying his mortgage and other expenses? Does he even have health insurance?
"I find it odd that no one has yet asked what Charney is doing?"
Yeah, nobody. Like 4/7 12:04, 1:29, 12:42, and 4/8 3:09, 11:48, and you. In this thread alone. If those were not all your posts, then please learn to read; if they were your posts, please take the hint that nobody else cares how Charney is supporting himself. He's an hysterical kook.
"no HLR editor has gone to S&C in years."
And clearly, it's impossible to have prestigious recruiting classes without any HLR editors, given the HLR's monopoly on prestige. S&C is having a banner year. The firm can hardly keep up with client demand for its high-priced services. The fact that you want to believe that the firm is suffering as a result of Charney's silly suit doesn't make it so.
Now please, would somebody tell me what they see in Charney's original complaint that's actually actionable? His own claims: one partner made a snide comment to him that couldn't be confirmed by firm investigators, a gay partner reached out to him to offer reassurance, his name was accidentally left off a summer mentoring list (which is nothing but a time-sink and a career impediment anyway), and the firm floated the idea of transferring to the London office to see whether or not that's what he wanted. Where's the lawsuit? All I see are efforts to accommodate his hysteria that fall short of giving him millions of dollars for a single unsubstantiated off-color remark. Most of the complaint is nothing but second-hand gossip, rumors from other associates about things partners may or may not have actually said but that were never manifested as actions by the firm.
Charney has already admitted under oath to leaking client documents to the press, despite the assertions of many commenters here that he'd never be foolish enough to do that because it's self-destructive and he had nothing to gain. He has admitted to destroying his hard drive while it was under a protective order and without a settlement agreement in place because he panicked when S&C got angry at him (What the hell did he expect? Hugs?). When will you figure out that he's making all of his own problems?
Get it through your head: S&C partners are former S&C associates. The associates are every bit as crazy and obnoxious as the partners. Charney isn't the good guy here, he's just one more self-involved prima-donna who over-reacts hysterically every time he's given the opportunity. If he had stuck around and made partner instead of destroying his own career, he'd have been every bit as unpleasant to work for and every bit as oblivious to his own misbehavior as everyone else.
This isn't David-vs.-Goliath. It's one piranha who freaked out and attacked his school. He's going to lose. He deserves it. The firm would be better off without him, except that his job will surely be filled with another egotistical loon.
Rodge should read The No Asshole Rule by Robert Sutton. There's a whole chapter on how uncontrolled assholery can ruin an org and open it up to liability.
Incidentally, Lat, there is an interview in that book with a "former researcher for SCOTUS" who reports on the psycho behavior of a "high ranking govt official" and how "she was forced to retire."
"It's one piranha who freaked out and attacked his school."
I have to admit Charney has acted very aggressively and vindictively in this matter. Not that S&C have been sweethearts either. This may be the most apt characterization of Brokeback Lawfirm.
1:28 - best post ever.
11:48 and 12:25: Why do you care about what Charney is currently going through? I don't mean this as a criticism, I just don't understand why this matters. The homosexual probably saved a fair amount of money in his 4 years at S&C, and he certainly get some form of hourly attorney position that pays in the 6 digits if that's what he wants, to say nothing of the fact that his family is probably helping out.
firms should like gays and homos - no child leave ever
plus all of the gays and homos that i know in law firms are workaholics - very profitable
if i was managing partner of a firm, i would have an affirmative action policy for gays and homos