That was incredibly stupid on his part. The firm, in my opinion, did the right thing. Today it is a "consensual kiss" and then tomorrow it is a million dollar sexual harrassment claim. The only thing this guy has earned is a Darwin Award for effectively killing his legal career. Add the tranny judge to the category as well.

Very stupid of Kasowitz to issue the extremely inappropriate press release. Of course, it will lead to a law suit.

David, it would be great to have some clarification about your Section 230 point.

Under your latest Harvard Law Review post, last night some people (or, at least, one person, possibly a troll) claimed that Elizabeth Barchas authored the May note which was plagiarized (in part) from an old (losing) Ames brief, apparently in violation of Harvard's rules on academic honesty.

Previously, on Wednesday and Thursday, Chiraag Bains had been identified as the author, and ridiculed in detail (e.g., Chiraag "Sex Offender Friend" Bains, "Chigger Brains," and other highly mature names), which I guess is par for the course on this blog, and not completely unwarranted assuming he is indeed the author of the defective note.

Assume that Barchas turns out to be innocent of any involvement with this note. Are you saying that Section 230 would permit her to go after whoever tried to frame her for this thing? If so, would you please voluntarily e-mail her the relevant IP addresses so she can follow up as appropriate? What's the point of your mention of Section 230 if you're not willing to disclose IP addresses voluntarily?

The people attacking the Review (both on this note and the earlier note) say there shouldn't be anonymous authorship -- surely they can't complain if you e-mail Barchas the IP addresses, can they?

If you're not willing to do this, it strikes me that your mention of Section 230 is just window-dressing, and you're not serious about holding commentators accountable under the law even for malicious lies directed at Barchas and others.

His case does seem iffy. Will the associate back him up on the kiss and the e-mails he sent to her later being harmless? Or was she the one who told the other partners about what had happened? Either way, he was still fired over that incident, a fact he obviously didn't disclose to Morgan. That makes it very different from the case of Frode Jensen, who was never fired and also had a confidentiality agreement with his firm. Kasowitz is also not Pillsbury; they don't have a white-shoe image to uphold and so have no incentive to settle. It's just going to get worse for this guy.

The same thing happened with Pillsbury a number of years back, and they paid through the nose to the smeared partner.

9:26:

Word from the Review is that to preserve its policy of anonymity, both as to current authors and authors going decades past, no one's going to say anything about anything -- which certainly means there aren't going to be any lawsuits over any of this.

See the long, angry comment by one of the Review editors yesterday about 5 or 6, going into detail about the Review's "no comment" decision (clearly an editor given the internal documents cited in the comment).

Good call on the Darwin Award for Mr. Pitcock. Darwin Award should also go to Kasowitz for issuing the press release and inviting such litigation.

Why did he leave Morgan and Finnegan? If they asked him and he explained that it was just a kiss and no big deal presumably they would not ask him to clear out his desk. There is something else going on here me thinks

9:26: I doubt Lat cares about "holding commentators accountable." And he shouldn't. Lat's reference to Section 230 has one intended purpose: to disclaim any responsibility for posts. Your backwards analysis of his reference to Section 230 makes me think you work on HLR, perhaps you could turn it into a note. It would be another fabulous example of how frivolous and brainless HLR has become.

Still, maybe Lat should "do the right thing at every moment" and e-mail those IP addresses to Barchas pronto.

Ditto 9:49.

9:26,

So you're reading Lat's Section 230 comment as meaning Lat intends to personally hold commenters accountable? That's idiotic at best. Lat's reference to Section 230 is clearly designed to put commenters on notice that the defamed party may seek to hold the commenter accountable.

I can assure you that this "consensual kiss" was not the only instance of inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Pitcock. Still, issuing the press release was extremely foolish.

According to the story, the kiss happened and then time passed during which he saw her twice and e-mailed her a couple times...the last e-mail being shortly before the Christmas party and occurring on the same day as he was called in to account for himself. So, my curiosity lies in what the e-mail said. Something like, "Are we going to finish what we started last time after throwing a few back at the Christmas party?" Then she told the partners???

I had a semi-similar thing happen -- after drinking and admittedly flirting with a partner at a firm event, he followed me back to my car and tried to kiss me and I said no and he tried to hold me against my car and kiss me anyhow. I blew it off. He was chagrined in the morning. I never said anything to anyone, but I halfway suspect he confessed to the managing partner because my firm appointed "mentor" was in my office the next day feeling me out about how I was doing in general. Anyhow...so end of story. It happens. HOWEVER, had he tried to follow up on one drunken stupidity with a series of sober e-mails relating to it, that would have been worse and might have prompted me to have to deal with it rather than just pretending it didn't happen.

9:54--you can assure us? Pray tell how can you assure us?

9:49, I think you're right that 9:26 is someone on the HLR.

But I don't this 9:26 is trying to influence Lat to actually do something. I think 9:26 realizes what Lat's reference to Section 230 was really about.

I think 9:26 is some sort of threat to whoever put out Barchas's name to stop doing it, or possibly face legal action. Presumably a lawsuit could and would lead to disclosure of the IP addresses, which I presume Lat has on file.

Websites do not give up IP addresses voluntarily. But if someone sued commenters as "John Does," like the AutoAdmit plaintiffs did, and subpoenaed ATL, then ATL would have to turn that information over.

How common is it for a managing partner to be able to fire other partners without cause?

I interview with Kasowitz and he struck me as the kind of guy you did not want to cross.

9:59--I understand thet he is THE partner and then there are all the other partners

Guys in my high school used to engage in extremely inappropriate personal conduct all of the time. It was no big deal.

Is his legal career really worth $90M?

dear xoxo trolls, please stop with the horribly unfunny guys in my high school thing. it's really stupid and uninteresting. take it back to that cesspool from whence it came.

10:52: Ditto

I miss Fraternity Lothario

I think we need some discussion re: the line between "inappropriate" and "extremely inappropriate" behavior. I just can't imagine a kiss crossing into the latter category.

Guys at my high school used to complain about xoxo trolls all the time. It was no big deal.

Lat's citation to Section 230 will definitely boost the anemic comment level on this blog.

"Anemic"? There are currently two comment clusterf**ks on the ATL front page.

I would rather see fewer comments of higher quality than hundreds of comments of crap.

10:57 - I agree that "extremely inappropriate" is not a proper description of the behavior. I would put it somewhere closer to "an instance of poor judgment" or "a lapse in professionalism." While such behavior should be punishable, firing seems very disproportinate. Perhaps there are some additional facts we don't yet know...?

Wow...crickets....

Geeze 10:57, the guy didn't accidentally curse in front of a client or wear flip-flops to work - HE WAS INTIMATE WITH A SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE AT AN OFFICE EVENT!! There's no such thing as a "consensual" kiss between a partner and an associate! ANY associate understands that she stands to suffer professionally by refusing or reporting a partner's overtures to the effect described in the complaint. This is per se grossly innapropriate, and he should have been fired sooner!!

Guys in my HS looked as handsome as Pitcock; it was no big deal.

Whatever-- associates hook up with partners all the time and anyone who insists that the associate (inevitably assumed to be female) is a poor innocent victim of the evil white man world domination conspiracy is full of shit. That said, you're all a bunch of naive idiots for taking Pitcock's word for what happened-- hooking up with an associate is far from "extremely inappropriate personal conduct" but that just says to me that whatever actually happened was much worse.

re: 9:59 -- Kasowitz personally is a tough character, and that firm fights tough, and sometimes fights a little dirty. It is no accident they are called the "terrorists". If Pitcock really tries to fight this, he is in for a tough time (tougher than Charney, who was going against an opponent that much more reputational risk).

9:56 - you're right, it looks like this will turn on the 12/5 email.

Wait, he kissed some chick at work when he had a new wife, a baby, and another on the way?

At least half a jury would just say, "fuck this guy" and award him nothing. By the way, does a civil jury have to be unanimous in NY, or just a majority?

Just a reminder that this is hardly the first time Pitcock has shown his misogynist colors:

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/mit-erulkarbitran/protest-rally

According to that story: as an undergrad at MIT, he was part of a group of "counter-protestors" that attended a rally to support a victim of sexual assault and held up posters in the back that said things like "Don't Flatter Yourself", and "She Wanted It". The guy's a piece of work, and there is FAR more to the happenings at Kasowitz than has come out so far (since when is the version of events in a plaintiff's complaint taken as gospel anyway?)

um, 12:48- just to clarify the facts. Although what he did was probably wrong, the article describes him counter-protesting an alleged victim of sexual harassment, not of sexual assault. (Although for purposes of his current litigation, maybe even worse because directly on-point.) Nonetheless, his entire participation in that event shows a lack of judgment that is glaring for a future lawyer.

12:48 - - There is FAR more? Let us in on it.

12:48 don't tease, spill

12:48 - truth is a complete defense. So please feel free to say anything that's true.

wha?? is it news that partners hook up w/ associates? then some partners in the litigation department at shearman are in some serious trouble. fired for a kiss? how about totally not fired for . . . well, let's just say much more, and on "school grounds," too.

12:48, your silence is deafening.

12:48 hates us

HATES us.

This dude looks like a dork.

Can it be true that she willfully kissed his super-thin lips, as mounted in that overall doughy face?

Knew of this guy at STB.

World-Class Jackass - C*&^Sucker

His current wife is his former associate who he was cheating with at the time.

He is Scum of the Earth and was tossed from STB when told he was not making partner there

Well, he's not scum of the earth. And he was not a dork either. He was actually accepted to Harvard and chose MIT because he wanted more academic discipline in the Physics department.

I was reading the Harvard commencement speech by J.K. Rowling where it mentions the twin lights of failure and imagination. Rock bottom allows you to strip away the essentials and imagination for empathy.

J.K. Rowling's speech
http://harvardmagazine.com/go/jkrowling.html

I'm not a lawyer, but would it be possible to start his own practice in the field of complex Patent litigation?

Everyone says how "brilliant" he is... so..... maybe this isn't rock bottom, but still for someone with his talents and education there will be opportunities.

5:07 he wasn't tossed by STB when he was told he wasn't making partner. He LEFT because they wouldn't make him partner in his first year of eligibility and he was a superstar who should have made it in his first year of eligibility.

Why do I always have to point out the elephant in the room? Pitcocks's sexually harrassing/humping/fucking/kissing/licking/boinking approach to the practice of law is hardly the way to develop the "stellar" practice he allegedly had. For one thing, he would not have had time to devote any serious attention to a case considering all the visits to doctor's offices he must have made over the years for venereal treatments.

7:25pm, there's no question he screwed up his practice, but I think there may be some truth into his allegation that Kasowitz' post-firing PRESS RELEASE was a way to get rid of him and keep his clients. Kasowitz went too far. Not $90 mil too far, but perhaps $10 mil too far.

12:48--Are you a Kasowitz employee? The complaint says that Kasowitz tries to control the spin on blogs by encouraging associates to post comments anonymously for them. The complaint also says their PR firm does the same. Here's a link to the complaint. It's a pretty good read:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/files/jeremy_pitcock_pitcock_v.%20Kasowitz_FINAL%20Complaint%20(pdf)-0001.PDF

12:47, majority on damages

I know Pitcock and I was at MIT during that protest. He's not a misogynist. If you actually read the article about the protest it quotes Pitcock as saying that sexual harrassment is a real problem. But he thought that the professor shouldn't be harrassed as well. The complaint (link above in 8:42's comment) says Pitcock recruited talented women and minority attorneys to the firm in order to build a diverse department. Doesn't sound like the actions of a misogynist.

8:52, Pitcock's own allegations in his complaint aren't very good evidence that he's a good person.

8:52, Pitcock's own allegations in his complaint aren't very good evidence that he's a good person.

If Pitcock's own description of what happened made him sound like a misogynist, that would be an extraordinarily bad complaint.

This is wonderful news to happen to a firm as subvisize devious callous as Kasowitz

May they rot!!!!!!

The real lesson here: When you are a SIMPSON THACHER superstar and they tell you to wait one measley year to make partner and be set for life, don't let your ego get in the way and jump to a crap firm like Kazowitz

Irrespective of the merit of Pitcock's complaint, Kasowitz has really screwed itself over a measly few million in client billings. Kasowitz will not be able to attract anybody with a substantial book. It's simply not worth the risk for a real rainmaker to put himself/herself in the position of having clients plucked and questionable charges proffered. This must have been orchestrated by lower level partners to protect or recover turf, and the managing partner was lured in and acted before he realized it wasn't worth it. Don't be surprised to see some of the IP partners summarily bounced out after this thing is resolved.

Morgan, on the other hand, comes out of this looking very good. Pitcock obviously lied to them and they took quick action once they found out. Clients can appreciate this kind of no-nonsense response and indeed like to see that in their attorneys.

Prudish Americans - get over it - a kiss is just a kiss!

Presumably the original law firm could have truthfully stated e.g. "He didn't leave, we fired him" or words to that effect. That would have been less damaging than "Dismissed for extremely inappropriate personal conduct" -- if I read that, I wouldn't hire him. If I read "dismissed for exercising poor judgment in that he consensually kissed an associate" I'd certainly wonder what kind of consensual kiss gets one fired (ass-kissing more senior partners is, of course, not only allowed but expected...) but would be more likely to hire him.

By doing a news release that was both vague and very serious-sounding, it sounds like he should be entitled to damages for defamation going to professional reputation (though not nearly as much as he's suing for!).

All that said, this is one of those extremely fact-dependent situations. I can imagine hypothetical situations in which even a consensual kiss, with follow-up communications, would be harassment, and a law firm might have policies that any relationships between partners and associates (or staff) are forbidden because the power imbalance leads to a presumption of unfair pressure. A kiss is not a relationship, however!

what about the associate?

A friend of mine is an associate at Kasowitz and he told me about all of this when it happened. It wasn't just a consensual kiss; Pitcock followed her home one night and demanded to come upstairs. Five other female employes of the firm came forward after word got out about it at the firm and complained that he had harrassed them as well.