Add RSS RSS

Brokeback Lawfirm: Score One for S&C

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell.JPGAfter a quiet period, in which we were reduced to wishing Gera Grinberg a happy birthday, there's some actual news about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. From Keeping Up With Jonas:

Judge Fried issued his decision in response to S&C's partial motion to dismiss. Though both sides landed blows, it seems that S&C can claim itself the victor of this battle. The Court dismissed Charney's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED") and Conspiracy causes of action, albeit without prejudice. However, at least as it stands now, it appears that Charney may have difficulty reviving these claims. But it was not a complete victory for S&C. The Court declined to strike most of the paragraphs from the Complaint that S&C had requested.

More from Jonas here, and Justice Bernard Fried's order here (PDF). Jonas titled his post "The Empire Strikes Back." But why did he use a photo of Sharon Nelles instead of H. Rodgin Cohen (who is closer in age and appearance to Emperor Palpatine)?

Professor Arthur Leonard offers the detailed, thorough analysis that we've come to expect from him. Here's an excerpt:

So, what does all this mean? I'm not entirely sure....

I had thought that these additional claims were separate and distinct from the NYC HRL [Human Rights Law] claims, as relating to the activities of S&C and Gallion in reaction to the lawsuit rather than to S&C's treatment of Charney as an employee. That is, the HRL claims related to what happened before Charney filed his original lawsuit. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was addressed to the tactics that S&C then used after the lawsuit was filed to try to pressure Charney to back down, and the conspiracy claim was specifically aimed at the enlistment of attorney Gallion to add to the pressure and sidetrack Grinberg from allying himself with Charney

Does Fried's action in dismissing these additional legal claims but refusing to strike almost all the factual allegation paragraphs of the complaint that specifically relate to them mean that he believes the events that came after the first complaint are now part of the overall case under the city Human Rights Law? If so, then Charney has lost nothing by this dismissal order, and the judge has at least implicitly ratified the idea that S&C's response to his complaint becomes part of the retaliation case, at the very least.

Professor Leonard's full post appears here. We agree with his assessment that "this continues to be a complicated case." When are we going to get more sexy and salacious allegations?

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell [New York Supreme Court (PDF)]
Court rejects bid to expand Charney case [Leonard Link (Art Leonard)]
Charney Sullivan & Cromwell Decision: The Empire Strikes Back [Keeping Up With Jonas]

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by Anon1 | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 10:55 AM

if Charney wins the lawuit, does the reputation of S&C suffer a great blow or just a little tarnish that will fade with time?

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:21 AM

Do you mean in the eyes of clients and the world, or in the eyes of law students looking at jobs? Oh, I forgot, the people commenting here do not concern themselves with the silly, and slightly dirty, notion of clients, only school and firm stature.

avatar
3 Posted by I'm always third | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

I looked in the toilet and saw a THIRD!

avatar
4 Posted by I'm always third | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:23 AM

I looked in the toilet and saw a THIRD!

avatar
5 Posted by Loyola 2L | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:25 AM

More money for the defense lawyers. They're doing a good job of profiting off of this. I bet they’ll drag it out for three years.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:27 AM

Nelles went to B.C. law. Between her and the two partners that were abusive here, is there anyone at S&C who graduated from a top school? Or is it only that the lower ranked school partners are the ones doing all the work?

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:28 AM

I think S&C's rep gets increasingly tarnished as this continues.

avatar
8 Posted by anon | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:31 AM

Poor Charney, destroyed his career over a poop comment.

avatar
9 Posted by Let the Eagle Soar | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

In the real world, no one cares.

avatar
10 Posted by anon | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 11:45 AM

"In the real world, no one cares."

Credited. Charney fucked up.

avatar
11 Posted by Speaking of S&C | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 12:55 PM

Have any other NYC firms matched S&C's recent bonus program for senior associates?

avatar
12 Posted by Cardozo Grad | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 1:36 PM

tarnished?
I'm sure every 2L is thinking, I would never work for S&C because of these allegations. Besides there's always Held, Held & Held.
http://www.heldheldandheld.com/office1.html

And clients have no ideas what the hell is going on in the legal world....

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 2:29 PM

Aaron should stop tweezing his eyebrows. His left one is disappearing...

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 3:58 PM

I am a fan of justice, not necessarily Charney, but how 11:45 did Charney fuck up? For tolerating things until he could no longer and then suing S&C? That is the real world and one that you ought to acknowledge as you might actually have to represent a client someday and take a stand because in your client's world, a very real one to them, they have been wronged and seek your help in vindication.
Your comment smacks of the guy that says that it was ok that a woman got abused because she was dressed up for it. Maybe Charney didn't do everything perfectly when he was filing pro bono, but that is a far cry for fucking up!!! He still has viable claims that someday S&C will actually have to interpose an answer and defend against. So where again did he fuck up?

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 5:08 PM

Cardozo Grad: Curious...as in-house counsel and recently of the BigLaw set...why do you think we don't understand the legal world? I mean, that's like telling your parents and grandparents that your generation invented sex. Been there, done that...now in charge of hiring/firing and approving or disapproving your invoices.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, October 1, 2007 10:13 PM

I would go work for Held^3, no problem. The Held girls are HAWT!

Post Your Comment