Summer Associate of the Day Earlier in the Month: The Clifford Chance Lolita
This story has been making the rounds in New York summer associate circles. We’ve known about it for a while, but we wanted to get more corroboration. Now that we’ve heard the same details from multiple sources, we feel that it’s fair game.
In the style of Page Six, we’re doing it as a blind item.* Here you go:
A partner at Clifford Chance was seen making out with a summer associate at the corporate reception [on Thursday, July 12]. The two were seen leaving together when a fifth-year associate ran out and told the partner: “Dude, you don’t want to do this.”
Now THAT is a good associate. The model associate is like an extension of the partner’s mind — the sober part.
So are summer associates fair game? Read the rest of this post, after the jump.
Before you get all judgmental, with respect to either the partner or the summer associate, remember this about Sen. Barack Obama and his lovely wife, Michelle Obama:
[Michelle Robinson] was working as an associate at law firm Sidley Austin, in the Chicago office, when she met Barack Obama. She was put in charge of being his mentor while he was a summer associate.She married Barack Obama in 1992, and they have two daughters, Malia (born 1999) and Sasha (born 2001).
Summer associates, beware. You never know where those free lunches might lead….
The origins of the Obama marriage demonstrate that relationships between summer associates and permanent lawyers at the firm are not per se “gross.” As those of you taking the bar exam this week surely recall, there’s a presumption of grossness, but it’s rebuttable.
In deciding whether the presumption has been rebutted, the most important factors are (1) the age difference between the parties and (2) their hotness. If the parties are close in age and incredibly good-looking, like Barack and Michelle Obama, then the relationship is not icky.
(Speaking of Obama, if you didn’t see it when it came out last month, this video is awesome.)
* Consistent with our general rule, we’re keeping the participants in the Clifford Chance make-out session anonymous. Please do not name them, or even speculate as to their identity, in the comments — which, of course, are the legal responsibility of the commenters (not ATL).
If things get out of hand in the comments, we’ll have to close the thread, and we’d rather not do that. Thanks.
Michelle Obama [Wikipedia]
“I Got a Crush…On Obama” By Obama Girl [YouTube]
Clifford Chance [official website]
(74) Comments
Comments
FIRST!!!! about Time
first?
Is truth no longer a defense?
Sure, truth is a defense to libel. But the legal costs of defending an action, even if meritless, can be significant.
How is this newsworthy? This happens at nearly every firm every summer at least once.
SCREW YOU 10:39!! I am first!!! NOBODY WILL STEAL MY THUNDER
Lat: well done. Does the "presumption of ickiness" apply to associate relationships with summers, or only to partners? It seems to be a fairly thin line...
"This happens at nearly every firm every summer at least once."
Oh, I thought it happens to every summer associate at least once. . .
Hollywood celebrities get busted for DUI every day (not just every summer), but TMZ.com and US Weekly still report on that.
not to mention that, because this is a private matter involving non-public actors the defense would have to establish truth as a defense, rather than the partner in question proving up falisty. That would require both more work and higher costs.
Lat may not want to burn any bridges he might have over at Clifford Chance
whats the matter with a little partner-SA lovin'?
ttiwwp
well played, partner. well played.
not so well played for the summer, though. she should have waited 'til she was permanent.
I guarantee that this parter is three shades of ugly and the SA is pretty good looking. When this sort of thing happens, it's usually a partner using his power relationship to his advantage. (Note, it's always a "he" partner and always a "she" associate.) Are women that easily impressed or are men that sleazy...hmmmm?
"Lat may not want to burn any bridges he might have over at Clifford Chance"
What doesn't fit in this list: fed appellate clerk, WLRK associate, AUSA, semi-famous blogger ... Clifford Chance associate
Let's not be too quick to judge the partner here. One of my law school friends was proud of her "work" with partners during her summer associate stints. Summer Associates aren't 15 - they're anywhere from 22 - 30+ years old.
Of course, this is a guaranteed offer for her.
Re: truth. If you saw it, you saw it. That makes it true. And surely others did too. Sure you could get sued, but do you really think the partner or the SA want to file a public lawsuit? And if they did, you could knock it out on SJ with a few affidavits (just skip the MTD).
10:59 Thats not what I meant. I was thinking more along the lines of getting information from the firm's reps regarding salary raises and so on. Just a thought.
11:03: Agreed, public lawsuits just make these things worse. The lawsuit and coverage of it just broadcast the scuttlebutt farther.
But people still file them. E.g., Robert Steinbuch v. Jessica Cutler (Washingtonienne).
DC Vault List of Shame (still at $145,000)
17. Williams & Connolly ($165k no bonus)
42. Baker & McKenzie
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
86. McGuire Woods
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
96. Venable
So are we to assume from this that the 5th year associate was succesful in convincing the partner he didn't want to leave with the summer?
Re: 10:44
In addition, there may be an actionable invasion of privacy tort, to which truth is not a defense.
White Summers With Asian Partners
11:16 - If this story is to be believed, hooked-up in public (ie, no expectation of privacy). If so, you'd need to file a MTD after all.
11:20 am...
Perhaps, but it the public hook-up has been deemed indeed "private" in recent years due to the oft-repeated "what happens at firm event, stays at firm event" principle. Lawyers have been consistently beating this dead horse, even outside the state of Nevada.
Barack Obama?
Re: 11:16
"Re: 10:44
In addition, there may be an actionable invasion of privacy tort, to which truth is not a defense."
Not in NY. Didn't you pay attention in BarBri?
Why does the focus of the rule have to be a defamation suit? Maybe Lat's just trying not to be shitty to people.
File the Decl. Judg. motion now while the going is still good. That SoL is gonna stretch way longer than the relationship.
11:31-
Maybe a bunch of us are taking a bar exam this week and don't have time to think about things like human decency that have nothing to do with black letter law.
anon
(But apparently we do have time to read above the law and post on it.)
11:34 -- Good point. If you remember human decency you'll get all the multistate questions wrong. And you'll never make partner.
11:34 - you'd be unlikely to make to second year associate.
Besides, 11:16, I don't even live in NY. As you know, there's no long-arm jurisdiction for defamation under either torts committed in NY or torts committed outside NY that can reasonably be expected to have an effect in NY.
This happened a few years ago at Clifford too- a partner was kissing an SA at the big end of summer event.
11:29 they were in a public place, or at least semi-public, since there was an associate there to stop them. No invasion of privacy.
I would hit that shit
Talk about a cock block. If I was the partner in this story, that 5th year punk would have been fired on the spot. He was obviously just jealous because he wasn't hookin' up with any summers.
11:12, yes, the 5th year was successful--they did not go home that anyone could see. And in case anyone's wondering, neither of them are hot.
wait, i don't understand why the opprobrium (and the title of this post) is on the summer, not the partner. summers should know better, partners most likely are *required* to know better as they get sexual harassment training and probably are told at the intro to the summers meeting something to the effect of: DONT SLEEP WITH THE SUMMERS. lol. whatevs.
That's the problem with law firms - too stodgy for older guys with status to express their natural preference for younger women without being labled *gross* and *creepy*.
Wow, some people forget the law so quickly after the bar. Don't be a retard, it wouldn't be defamation. Try on Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
"Public disclosure of private facts -- the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable." Further, "Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which, although truthful, is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy
However, it is obvious that even this wouldn't be applicable if it were true that said making out was happening in a public setting, thereby eliminating any reasonable expectation of privacy, which is sometimes required.
12:14 - actually, calling her a lolita puts the blame on the partner...
12:26,
I love that you use wikipedia. Westlaw too expensive?
What jurisdiction do you work in that allows citation to wikipedia? Arkansas? West Virginia? Texas?
Maybe my firm is prudish, but this doesn't happen every summer. Maybe I'm making too big a qualitative difference between ackward attempts to ask out summers and MAKING OUT at an event. I've never seen that, thank god.
Was the partner married?
Sexual harassment requires quid pro quo exchange/offer or for it to be unwelcome. Doesn't sound unwelcome to me based on the facts, and every summer gets an offer, so what employment benefit is he offering in exchange for the smoochies?
Actually according to this article, Wikipedia is cited frequently in opinions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html
Even Richard Posner does it!
12:47,
Actually, Lolita puts the blame on the summer. Nabokov's book was so scandalous because it sexualized children and made it seem like she was seducing the author in the subjectively written book. That's why Amy Fisher is considered a witch as the Long island Lolita who wrecked buttafuco's marriage.
Also, 12:59, there are two types of harassment - you're right, it's not quid pro quo, but it may be hostile work environment. Perhaps not for the summer, there's no reason to think she wasn't happy to go along, but sexual harassment claims also may be raised by those who are also reasonably offended, like, say other female summers who are trying to get into the hard to get corporate spots at the firm and watch as the partner of that department (hypothetically) makes a pass at a rival summer who is also gunning for the same spot. My point is that she may not be the one raising sexual harassment claims on hostile work environment grounds, perhaps one of the other summers or secretaries or whatever would.
Again, whatevs, this prolly is irrelevant, i'm just saying it's interesting that what one may call hero worship of judicial divas may actually not be such a complimentary motif.
Can female SA (X) bring a sexual harassment suit against female SA (Y) if (Y) offers sexual favors to partner (Lucky)?
What is creepy about older males and young women. That is natural and the way humans have been mating for thousands of years. The only people that find it creepy are women who are jealous at the attention the young women are getting and young males who are jealous of the older men taking what they view as "their' women. Not a creepy thing at all. Feminism has warped this country and so many minds.
That 5th year should be fired. What a cock-blocking asshole. Mind your own business and keep your mouth shut.
Probably not. Oncale says maybe because "because of sex" in Title VII doesn't necessarily have to arise from desire. But courts in my state say it's hard to see how Y's offer to Lucky directly harm X. There is case law that says X can't get compensation becasue Y and Lucky have a relationship because the harm is too attenuated. That said, if Y magically gets the desired spot in Lucky's group, well then, X may have an alleged harm, but it wouldn't be against Y.
1:13 -
i don't think one partner taking home one summer (assuming it's an isolated incidient) qualifies as severe and pervasive.
1:20 PM: Amen, brother.
to 1:32, definitely agree. note i'm not saying if it's legitimate or would be successful, i'm just saying it may get raised/ugly. it happened (ALLEGEDLY) a few years ago at a high powered boutique in Cali(ALLEGEDLY). which probably would not be desirable in the eyes of any firm. which is probably why it's awkward for everyone. whatever. i don't care - i'm not making a normative statement - to each their own. i'm just saying it's an interesting concern and the hr department is trying to figure out if they have to give offers to everyone right now because of the way people are trained to protectively react to this stuff.
I'd hit it twice. Non-consecutively.
Ballsy move by the associate identifying himself as a witness with his protestations to "not do it". I would have fired him for witnessing the event then took her home and banged her.
The post failed to mention that he was a MARRIED partner
Reminds me of an essay question from the bar last year.... (Nah, just kiddin. You poor suckers taking the bar this week...)
2:05, That usually seems to be the case. Sad, but not surprising.
all this talk about defamation and invasion of privacy and nothing about common courtesy? its a dick move to post these people's names online, and lat isnt a dick.
So does this clear the way for female partners to initiate male summers in the pleasures of sex with an older woman?
I wouldn't mind talking to a few women associates... the partners are not so hot though!!!
1:45: awesome.
Maybe the summer was Loyola 2L - L2L did say that they would do ANYTHING to get in the door.....
However, Loyola students couldn't even be fluffers at Clifford....
Actually according to this article, Wikipedia is cited frequently in opinions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html
Even Richard Posner does it!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2007 01:07 PM
Not for substantive law!
did wikipedia have a link to the NYT article, citing its own cite-abilit-o-meter?
replace sexual harrassment in the workplace with sex in the workplace! i'd be happy to do the late nights if it meant that once in a while a partner would come along and bend me over my desk!
05:28 = Aaron Charney?
wtf - these comments suck. Trees vs. forest and all that. Bottom line: don't shit where you eat. You should never fuck around with anyone that you share a workspace (and I mean that in a broad sense, i.e. same firm) with. Period. Unless you (mutually and consensually) have pictures of wedding bells and rings exchanged in the future, these workplace flings fuck things up.
All this legal shit is wittily missing this basic point. So suck on them balls.
I think calling the partner "Dude" in that situation is worth at least 4 extra bonus points!
I summered at a stayed, venerable medical defense firm. Not big law, but nevertheless conservative.
I thought it would be a “good idea” for the law clerks to host the partners for a change, and thus the first (and last) annual *******, ********** summer law clerk cocktail party was born.
I submitted the required proposal to the senior name partner still living, and although he cut back the party end time to 6:00 p.m. it was approved!
Long story short, the party was still going strong with several attorneys slow dancing with summers at 12:00 midnight, at which point the cleaning staff was bribed with some French bread and brie to disappear; at least two marriages and one divorce directly resulted from my “good idea”.
Hint: at 1:00 a.m. there are no “ickies” left in attendance, on either side of the partnership desk.
It is one of my proudest memories, aside from my partner-summer-secretary (I was the SA representative) “après” party at my LS bachelor pad (Pacific and Clay) following the firm summer picnic at Angel Island.
PS: Regarding the latter event, one (then) junior partner and hot secretary are still happily married.
The “icky” test should be amended to include a “consensual” based on the totality of the circumstances test, which—my dearest Lat—I believe subsumes the “icky test”. (Beauty is in the eye of the fellatrix , after all.)
Barack is actually 3 years older than Michelle - he was a 29 year old summer.
Yet another reason the situations don't compare.