Add RSS RSS

Breaking: Kasowitz Benson Sues Jeremy Pitcock

Monday, July 7, 2008 3:41 PM - By David Lat

Jeremy Pitcock Jeremy S Pitcock Morgan Finnegan Above the Law blog.jpgWOW. We’ll update this with more info later, but we wanted to post this ASAP, so we can be FIRST.

For now — WOW. Check out Kasowitz Benson’s barn burner of a complaint — filed against former partner Jeremy Pitcock (pictured), who sued the firm for defamation last month — by clicking here (PDF). See especially the following paragraphs:

  • 1-2 (intro; claim that Pitcock “subject[e]d at least twelve of the firm’s female employees…. to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances”);
  • 14-20 (alleged harassment of women in the IP group);
  • 21-23 (alleged inappropriate conduct at summer associate events);
  • 24-30 (alleged attempt to force himself on a first-year associate on her first day of work, going up to her apartment);
  • 31-36 (allegedly trying to get into another associate’s apartment);
  • 37-42 (allegedly coming on to seven women at the firm holiday party); and
  • 43-45 (allegedly using firm computers to access pornography).

    Kasowitz Benson means business. Note their retention of Sullivan & Cromwell to represent them in this action. Who signed the complaint? None other than high-powered partner Gandolfo V. DiBlasi.

    Vince DiBlasi is one of the top litigators in New York (and the country), but ATL readers may remember him best as “Field Marshal DiBlasi.” In the Aaron Charney litigation, DiBlasi allegedly attempted to intimidate Charney by boasting, “we’ve represented the Nazis.”

    S&C will gladly represent the Jews, too, as their involvement in this case suggests. As long as there’s no conflicts issue, and you’re willing to pay their famously large (and un-itemized) bills, you too can be a Sullivan & Cromwell client.

    P.S. Many of Kasowitz Benson’s top partners, including primus inter pares Marc Kasowitz, are Jewish. The firm is known for being an especially welcome place for observant Jewish lawyers.

    Update: For more, see these links:

    Kasowitz Benson Says Former IP Head Harassed 12 Women [American Lawyer]
    Law Firm Alleges Sex Harassment by Ex-Partner in Countersuit [New York Law Journal]
    Ex-Partner Sexually Harassed 12, Kasowitz Law Firm Says in Lawsuit [ABA Journal]
    Lawyer v. Law Firm: A Law Blog Roundup [WSJ Law Blog]

    Further Update: We’ve received a statement from the firm of Balestriere Lanza, counsel to Jeremy Pitcock. It begins:

    Today Kasowitz continued their shameless and unwarranted smear campaign against Mr. Pitcock, essentially trying to take the position that predominantly old white men should be able to force female employees to make frivolous allegations of sexual harassment against a former partner under the guise of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Not only are these claims legally dubious, but they essentially require women to bring baseless claims of harassment against Mr. Pitcock when none of them apparently had any desire to do so. This usurps the statutory scheme of the federal government, which requires a complaint and investigation by the EEOC prior to a person filing suit for sexual harassment. These claims also willfully violate the confidentiality promised by Kasowitz to anyone who is required to participate in an “investigation” by the firm. Mr. Pitcock will have no choice but to point out the ridiculous nature and inconsistencies in these claims at trial, which will undoubtedly lead to professional embarassment not only for Kasowitz, but for the women involved.

    Read the complete statement, after the jump (or just click here).

    Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman v. Jeremy Pitcock: Complaint (PDF)
    [Supreme Court of the State of New York]

    Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Jeremy Pitcock (scroll down)

    STATEMENT FROM BALESTRIERE LANZA RE: KASOWITZ BENSON V. JEREMY PITCOCK

    Today Kasowitz continued their shameless and unwarranted smear campaign against Mr. Pitcock, essentially trying to take the position that predominantly old white men should be able to force female employees to make frivolous allegations of sexual harassment against a former partner under the guise of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Not only are these claims legally dubious, but they essentially require women to bring baseless claims of harassment against Mr. Pitcock when none of them apparently had any desire to do so. This usurps the statutory scheme of the federal government, which requires a complaint and investigation by the EEOC prior to a person filing suit for sexual harassment. These claims also willfully violate the confidentiality promised by Kasowitz to anyone who is required to participate in an “investigation” by the firm. Mr. Pitcock will have no choice but to point out the ridiculous nature and inconsistencies in these claims at trial, which will undoubtedly lead to professional embarassment not only for Kasowitz, but for the women involved.

    Even if the women did tell the stories found in the Kasowitz complaint, it is difficult to believe that the many problems with these stories are not apparent even now to Kasowitz and its counsel. For example, according to the complaint, an associate spends hours drinking and talking with Mr. Pitcock, accepts a ride home with him, ends up in her apartment with him, and then takes him on a tour including her bedroom — all without expressing any objection or discomfort with the situation to Mr. Pitcock. But then, according to the complaint, Mr. Pitcock forced a kiss? The complaint with all the “details” it provides, nowhere alleges that she made any attempt to tell Mr. Pitcock that she is not interested before he kisses her. In truth, their kiss was consensual and brief before they mutually decided to go no further. Afterward, Mr. Pitcock had only friendly, brief and rare interactions with her, with no indication that such interactions were unwanted.

    Even worse, in order to claim a similar “attempt” on another woman, the pleadings allege that Mr. Pitcock did not hear a doorman announce that the woman’s boyfriend had already gone up to her apartment. This simply cannot be believed — Mr. Pitcock (as well as others) knew the woman in question essentially lived with her boyfriend and that he would be in her apartment that night. Indeed, she called him several times in front of Mr. Pitcock to wake him up so that he could let her into the apartment, which can be readily verified by phone records.

    The Kasowitz complaint is nothing more than a complete fiction intentionally designed to try and make Mr. Pitcock’s conduct look far worse than anything he actually did, although it does nothing more than prove that Kasowitz’s “thorough” investigation did not include asking Mr. Pitcock for his version of events. Space does not permit a rebuttal to the claims of vaguely described “lewd gestures” and “slapping the buttocks”, but Mr. Pitcock has never engaged in behavior of this kind, nor was it discussed with him while he was at the firm. The various statements attributed to Mr. Pitcock range from wildly out of context, to simply wrong, to statements that were clearly jokes or sarcasm. None of these statements, which were all made at social events involving drinking, would have been reasonably perceived as sexual harassment under the law.

    Pitcock is not the first person to claim Kasowitz or Sitrick have knowingly disseminated false and misleading information in the press. ICP, an investment management firm, asserted claims against the Kasowitz Firm and its client Fairfax alleging that the Kasowitz Firm had engaged in an intentional campaign of harassment and intimidation against ICP by, among other things, having ICP’s principals followed and intimidated by private detectives working for the Kasowitz Firm, and knowingly disseminating defamatory information about ICP in the media. Sitrick also represented Fairfax as its PR firm at the time ICP filed its lawsuit (see here). A securities analyst named Treppel has also asserted defamation claims against Sitrick, alleging that his career was destroyed by a smear campaign engineered by Sitrick and Biovail, another company represented by the Kasowitz firm (see here).

    Those who will undoubtedly read blogs concerning this case should also know that Phelps, an agent of Sitrick, used two aliases - not his own name - to post messages on Yahoo! Finance. Phelps also took the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination a total of 354 times in response to questions related to Phelps’ work for his client in that case (see here). There is every reason to believe that Kasowitz or Sitrick wrote some of the defamatory anonymous blog entries concerning Pitcock, although Pitcock will need discovery in order to prove these allegations.

    There should be little doubt in anyone’s mind that the primary purpose of the new claims by Kasowitz is to harass Mr. Pitcock. But claims such as breach of fiduciary duty for supposedly accessing porn when nobody else sees it only serve to convince Mr. Pitcock of the need for a public trial to expose the hypocrisy, lies and misdeeds of Kasowitz.

    • (224) Comments
    Posted in: Gandolfo "Vince" DiBlasi, Jeremy Pitcock, Kasowitz Benson, Sexual Harassment, Sullivan & Cromwell

    Comments

    Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!

    Post Your Comment