Schoenfeld v. Allen & Oy-vey-ry: A&O's Answer
(Plus more about Mark Wojciechowski)
The Magic Circle law firm of Allen & Overy, defendant in Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy, has just filed its Answer (PDF). They're hoping to make Norman Schoenfeld's claims disappear. Schoenfeld, an observant Jewish lawyer who once worked at the firm, alleges that A&O discriminated and retaliated against him as a result of his observing the Sabbath.
We contacted the firm for comment. Here is their statement:
Allen & Overy denies all allegations of discrimination. This person's employment was terminated based solely on performance within his orientation period, a trial period of time mandated for all employees. He also failed to disclose to Allen & Overy the fact of his previous employment at another law firm.Our firm has a strict written policy prohibiting any form of discrimination, and we provide all new employees and partners training in both diversity awareness and harassment prevention. Over the past several years, we have also instituted live diversity training for all of our existing attorneys and managers. We will vigorously defend our proud reputation of diversity and inclusion and are confident of a positive outcome for Allen & Overy with respect to these allegations.
More discussion, including interesting information from tipsters, after the jump.
Update (5/9/08): The case is settling. See here.
You can read A&O's Answer by clicking here (PDF). If you'd like to read it side-by-side with the Complaint, you can pull up Norman Schoenfeld's complaint by clicking here (PDF).
Here is one tipster's take on the Answer:
There is no substance to the reply. Interesting that it doesn't mention Woj's name [the Answer repeatedly refers to him as "the individual named in paragraph X"].Sounds like they are trying to keep it low profile. That may be a good sign for Schoenfeld.
Here are our random observations about the Answer:
1. A&O has retained Jackson Lewis, which describes itself as "a national workplace law firm." Like Sullivan & Cromwell in the Aaron Charney case, which hired Zachary Fasman of Paul Hastings, they're going with specialists (probably a wise move).2. Unlike S&C, which was represented by a small army of lawyers, A&O appears to have a tiny team. Only two lawyers' names appear on the Answer (both of them Emory Law grads, coincidentally): Todd Girshon, Emory '93, who made partner in 2002; and associate Ravindra Shaw, Emory '05, who is fabulously named (like a character in a novel).
3. The Answer is heavy on the use of scare quotes, especially in the headings (e.g., As To The "Parties"). It's annoying, but lawyerly.
4. Paragraph 12: We've learned that the unidentified "NYC Firm" where Schoenfeld did a brief stint is Schulte, Roth & Zabel.
5. Like our tipster, we note the repeated refusal to name Mark Wojciechowski. He's consistently referred to as "the individual named in paragraph X." Sure, "Wojciechowski" is a mouthful, and typing it out might cause your computer to crash. But the "individual named in paragraph X" formulation sure is awkward, in an "artist formerly known as Prince" sort of way. And it may just call more attention to MW in the end.
6. Paragraph 18: note A&O's denial of Schoenfeld's claim that his performance was "good."
One source at A&O feels the lawsuit is meritless:
This whole business about the shabbos thing is crazy. A&O has two managing partners who are both Jewish. There are lots of observant associates in the banking group [where Schoenfeld worked], and observant associates in the firm [as a whole], especially in the real estate group. This is just crazy.
Another tipster agrees that A&O has no problem with Jewish attorneys, but objects to the whole "A&O has lotsa matzoh" defense:
I'm a Sabbath observant associate at A&O and never encountered any problem at the firm. I am offended, though, by the firm putting observant attorneys up for display and having them comment about how accommodating the firm is....Using us as props is deplorable behavior, and if the same was done with members of another race or orientation, there would be outrage. As lawyers we all know that the firms treatment of other observant Jews is irrelevant to the case. Unfortunately, I can only imagine that Wojciechowski and the firm's handling of this must have been out of line for them to adopt such a demeaning and non-respectful strategy to deflect the allegations made in the complaint.
Lawyers know there are two (or more) sides to every story. Here are Zagat-style blurbs from sources who have worked with Mark Wojciechowski, offering both criticism and praise:
"Mark is a great guy. Very senior partner. He has a substantial book of business. He's used to associates working with him to do things very well and without a lot of direction. He’s a perfect gentleman. He's very soft-spoken; I've never heard him raise his voice. He’s quiet, he keeps to himself.""Believe me, Wojciechowski is a total jerk. This is an interesting side note, though. The complaint says that Wojciechowski offered Schoenfeld a job at Mayer Brown, withdrew it, and while still a partner at Mayer Brown offered him a job instead at Allen and Overy. Things were not pretty when he left Mayer Brown, and some partners at Mayer Brown think [he may have] violated Mayer Brown's partnership agreement....
"We work for law firms. Weekends get ruined sometimes. Mark is enough of a gentleman to apologize if he disrupts your weekend. He'll then come by your office on Monday to thank you for your hard work."
"He’s like a lot of senior partners. He is used to getting the best associates assigned to him. He doesn’t have a lot of patience for b.s. and small talk. Mark isn’t a back-slapper who will shoot the breeze with you forever. He’s direct, to the point...."
"He leaves you alone, he doesn’t micromanage, he’ll listen to your suggestions and input. He’s totally willing to take input from associates."
And a collection of divergent opinions about Norman Schoenfeld, from people who have worked with him:
"He's a disaster [in terms of work product]. He’s a nice guy. But people want things done right. Norman thought that if he didn’t think something should matter, it shouldn’t matter.""I worked with Schoenfeld. Shocked by this suit. He's a good guy and a good lawyer. I'm sure everyone who knows him hopes A&O pays big-time."
"Norman has a sense of entitlement. He just comes in like he should be king... Everything he could do was below him, and everything he wanted to do, he couldn’t do right."
Discovery is sure to be interesting, especially given the number of law firms that could potentially get dragged into the mess. In addition to Allen & Overy, there's Woj's former firm of Mayer Brown, and Norman Schoenfeld's former firms of Andrews Kurth and Schulte Roth & Zabel (the unidentified "NYC Firm").
Stay tuned. If you have firsthand info to share, please email us. Thanks.
Update (5/9/08): The case is settling. See here.
Answer: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)
Complaint: Norman Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy (PDF)
(45) Comments
a Jew at a law firm calling foul? that is like a blond-hair, blue eyed demigod suing the third reich for discrimination
I'm kind of shocked that someone would be surprised they are doing the dog and pony show with their other observant attorneys. That is pretty much par for the course, is it not?
Are things so bad at biglaw that lat is taking adds from Automobile Motorcyle Marine career training? Really?
CWT outplacement services to DeVry!~
i know schoenfeld well and he is sufficiently competent and pragmatic to make me think A&O really screwed this up. in any case, their failure to settle makes no business sense. as a former member of a large-law firm who recently moved in-house, i canvassed other in-house counsel and, in the absence of any further information on the case, report that this reflects negatively on A&O. the overall sentiment seems to be that it wouldn’t be prudent to be involved with them given the plethora of viable alternatives.
Hoping to make the claims disappear? Is that something like how the Nazis wanted to make the Jews disappear?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oYDBtCN-hk
3:50 = Schoenfeld
3:35, I think it was a pun (although a lame one) on the firm being in the "Magic Circle."
Magic, disappearing acts, get it?
Hoping to cook the claims in an oven? What like Hitler?
Kids in my highschool used to observe the Sabbath all the time, it was no big deal.
Schoenfeld probably went to a TTT like Fordham.
I think he went to Brooklyn Law (even lower on the ranking tables than Fordham).
Expel the Jews from the legal profession now.
Of course they'd like to keep it quiet--I bet S&C would have loved to keep things quiet too, but since Charney sent stuff to the press first, that was kinda difficult.
Why do partners allow Jewish lawyers to observe their Sabbath (Saturday) by not coming in to work, but when I (a Christian) tell them I want to observe my holy day (Sunday) they say, I'll see you at 9:00 Sunday morning. Jewish people run BigLaw.
I'm worried about the legal acumen of A&O's lawyers. One tipster says "As lawyers we all know that the firms treatment of other observant Jews is irrelevant to the case." This is flat-out wrong. The treatment of other similarly-situated employees is highly relevant to a defense against a discrimination claim. The tipster might not like this, but his lawerly analysis is way off the mark.
Alan's a creep and a sleeze who gives real observant Jews a bad name.
Billy - do everyone a favor and step in front of a bus
5:23 - Maybe you should stand up for your religion. As a Sabbath observant Jew, I have quit several jobs when ordered to work Saturday. Money just ain't worth it. If you let money trump religion and your boss knows it, that's on you
And frankly, 5:23, I have never met a Christian whose observance of a Sunday Sabbath in any way approximates an observant Jew's observance of Shomer Shabbos. It's not a matter of "oh, I'd really like to go to services." No lights. No car. No Blackberry. For observant Jews, doing any work on Shabbat is a violation of Jewish law. There is no parallel for observance in Christianity.
"Jewish people run BigLaw." Take your antisemitism elsewhere.
Judging from the tipsters who described the two men involved, this whole thing seems like a bunch of garbage. Looks like Schoenfeld rode into A&O on the coat-tails of Wojciechowski as if he was somebody, and then got canned for believing too much of his own BS. And now he's suing to get back at the folks who didn't give him enough respect.
My guess is that Schoenfeld was wise to how embarrassed S&C was by the Charney affair, and figured A&O would be so scared to go through an accusation of anti-semitism that they'd settle it quickly and quietly. A&O saw what happened to S&C just as well, so if they're going to fight this then you've got to figure they're extremely confident they'll prevail.
I used to work with this guy...he was just as big a douchebag as the story implies without me needing to explain further. His annoyingness/douchebagginess comes as no surprise though, given that he is a "member of the religion named in paragraph X." That's all you really needed to know about him to draw your own conclusions...
4:24 you never worked with him. a lot of things you could say about this guy good and bad but annoying & d'bag are off mark (pardon the "mark" pun)
2:07 you were had hook line and sinker: "judging from the tipsters", . last time ATL posted on this they had tip from AO assoc. that noone wanted to work with this Mark partner so AO now has "tipsters" send Lat some we love Mark "tips" - no doubt AO plants
no MB associates went to A&O with this senior partner with big book business as tip describes??? makes no sense unless this guy really is the devil. rainmakers who lateral always take team of associates eager to follow the money.
Norman worked for me. I always found him to be pleasant and a very capable lawyer. Never thought he was unstable or desperate. Feel like I am missing something here. Really quite surprised by this.
8:21am - no associates left with him from MB because there are no decent associates left at MB. All the good ones had left and now all MB can hire is TTT grads. Probably one of the reasons MW left. He did take another highly rated partner with him.
He was widely known at MB as being a hard arse to work with, but was a good guy. He's also super smalrt, so I would be very surprised if he discriminated against anyone.
did charney really get $1m+?
9:49 - partner he took was his butt-boy who is feather-weight. nice and good guys only means smile as they eff you and suckers like you smile back
truth or die -- rumors are maybe even more. this guy should have been gay and shabbos man. double $$
little confused. if norman is such a d'bag why would andrews kurth have wanted him back the first time he left?
9:49 if such good guy why would he offer, withdraw and then offer at Allen while still earning partner $$ at Mayer Brown. seems very sleazy. no clean hands here
i cant imagine that if a christian associate said "i cant be at work on sunday morning until after noon, I go to church" he would get any crap for it.
observant jews dont go to synagogue and then go home and watch the game. they dont use any electricity for 25 hours, and they dont do any work whatsoever for that 24 hour period. to compare that to Christian observance of the Sabbath is absolutely ludicrous.
im an aetheist, went to catholic school as a child and the comparison is just uneducated and/or loaded with bias. when someone refuses to allow you time off for church, or forces you to work on Christmas, New Years, Easter, etc, you let me know.
associates at AO NY are foreigners or nomads. law students don't even know what AO is when they come to whooo them on-campus. we like the free drinks though!!
to solve all problems -- atheists rock!!
A&O must have checked references before hiring this guy. A&O not stupid in hiring, especially a guy from TTT. they are smart at A&O and no doubt look for substantive references. Are we supposed to assume references lied too that he is so bad to be fired a few weeks later. doesn't smell right.
9:57 - that's BS. MB bent over backward to keep the other guy who was a good partner in his own right (and was co-head of the finance group at some point). I am sure he left for the same reason as MW... MB (espec NY) was circling the drain.
10.04 - you're probably right, but he could also have let him accept the offer, only to show up and see the partner who hired him had left. He would have been an a-hole either way.
9:49 that was just MB trying to stop mass defection after refco mess explosion. and btw MB has great lawyers still there. this guy is smily but he is nothing more than collect forms and smile. whatever
could partners at all these firms really be deposed. sounds like quite a bunch of happy partners. and they won't be able to bill the time . unless AO wants pick up professional courtesy tab! ha ha
9.57 - they still have a few good partners.
Their associates suck. Look @ Schoenfeld's law school and his former firm. He's probably about typical for recent hires at the associate level.
Their business plan in their finance group is to hire partners by picking up senior associates passed over at better firms. Says it all.
would his lawyer take this and file suit if total loser. looking up firm they seem too reputable for that.
"to compare that to Christian observance of the Sabbath is absolutely ludicrous."
Doesn't really matter what each religion does to honor the Sabbath, what they have in common is not doing work on the Sabbath. I'm Catholic and, yes, I can use a computer, watch TV, use the stove, drive, etc., on Sundays. If I was obeying the religion to the letter, however, I wouldn't do BIGLAW tasks on the Sabbath but, rather, would spend it quietly by going to church and spending time with my family. I fall short of this all the time, but that's what a serious Catholic would do.
How each religion defines "work" is different, obviously, but I don't think this needs to be some ridiculous pissing contest over who sacrifices more on the Sabbath.
observant, intereviewed AO, turned down job. think i saw one yarmulke in whole place. all other so called observant they had recruiting me apprently too afraid to look part in office (muslims wear turbins proudly; blacks are black; members of "class" should be proud). now they are all put up by firm to say how good firm is to tehm. why be embarressed then to look part - aren't embarresed to take time off??
10:09, it sounds to me like you just hate Christians. Just a month or so ago, ATL covered the issue of people being asked to work on Christmas. As far as Easter goes, I can't imagine telling a partner that I'm not available to work on his "emergency" project all of Easter day (or Good Friday) because of my religion. True, there are not many Christians who are that "observant," but why do you need to turn this into a competition over who observes the Sabbath in a more "legitimate" fashion. I haven't read all of the posts above, but I haven't seen any posters who say they are Jewish trying to get into that type of pissing contest.
i love the firm statement - does anyone expect a firm come out with statement we have strict policy in favor of discrimination and give training
I'm sure there are a TON of muslims wearing "turbins" there.
this schoenfeld guy has a lot of time on his hands based on the number of posts he has made here. he's a fuckign clownshoe.
1:01 - while 11:37 comment was stupid it probably not meant turbins runnibg around law firm, just general about wearing religioin in open. comment was certainly stupid as are any questions of how people practice religion. would hope schoenfeld's own posts better
Hey Norman, thanks for all the nice posts about yourself!
We're not retarded, idiot. I hope you lose.