Add RSS RSS

Everyone’s A Loser in Pitcock v. Kasowitz Benson

Jeremy Pitcock Jeremy S Pitcock Morgan Finnegan Above the Law blog.jpgThe big decisional news out of New York today is the guilty verdict in the Brooke Astor trial. Anthony Marshall, the son of the late socialite and philanthropist, was convicted in a scheme to defraud Mrs. Astor.

But we also have news of another notable ruling. Longtime readers of Above the Law will recall the case of Jeremy Pitcock, the successful intellectual-property litigator who was fired from Kasowitz Benson in December 2007. The firm issued an unusual statement saying that Pitcock had engaged in “extremely inappropriate personal conduct.”

Pitcock sued Kasowitz for defamation. Kasowitz turned around and sued Pitcock, alleging in its complaint that he “subject[e]d at least twelve of the firm’s female employees…. to a pattern of unwelcome sexual advances.”

Now a judge has ruled in both of the cases. From Nate Raymond of the New York Law Journal:

A nearly two year-long public brawl between Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman and a former partner it fired for sexual harassment could be quieting down now that a Manhattan Supreme Court judge has dismissed both parties’ lawsuits.

Justice Martin Shulman (See Profile) last week found “unavailing” and “unpersuasive” the arguments made against the firm by intellectual property lawyer Jeremy Pitcock, who sued for defamation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The judge also found Kasowitz Benson failed to show how Mr. Pitcock had damaged the firm.

Executive summary (or West headnote): “A pox on both your houses.”

Noteworthy lawyers represented both sides. Kasowitz was represented by Gandolfo “Vince” DiBlasi, the hard-charging Sullivan & Cromwell litigator known for boasting, in the Aaron Charney litigation, that S&C represented the Nazis. Pitcock was represented by Balestriere Lanza, an up-and-coming litigation boutique that’s already making a name for itself here in NYC.

What was the basis of the judge’s ruling? You can read the full ruling, but it’s summarized well in the NYLJ:

“Truth is always a defense to an allegation of defamation,” Justice Shulman wrote. The judge cited an apologetic e-mail Mr. Pitcock sent to a Kasowitz Benson partner.

“I wanted to have a chance to apologize to you for my recent behavior,” Mr. Pitcock wrote in the e-mail, according to the decision. “It is far from the standard that others expect of me, and that I expect for myself. I am truly sorry for the effect of that behavior on others at the firm, and I am willing to make amends as possible.”

In the e-mail, Mr. Pitcock said that after talking to his wife he was “committed to remaining at the firm if possible and proving that I will never again engage in any even arguably inappropriate behavior.” Mr. Pitcock said he would “accept whatever appropriate discipline you decide upon.”

And what about Kasowitz’s action against Pitcock?

Justice Shulman said Kasowitz Benson “failed to allege any actual losses that it suffered because of [Mr.] Pitcock’s actions.”

The firm not only did not identify any losses, but also provided no specific indication that Mr. Pitcock’s actions caused any reduction in business, Justice Shulman wrote. He noted the firm had previously asserted that no clients left because of Mr. Pitcock.

We haven’t investigated the record in this case, but there does seem to be a rough justice in this outcome. Neither side seems to have very clean hands (and who knows where Pitcock’s have been, if Kasowitz’s claims are true).

As for the parties, where are they now? To paraphrase this commenter, “KASOWITZ REMAINS.” The firm continues to be busy, getting involved in such high-profile matters as the Google Books case and the Qaddafi tent litigation. Earlier this year, it named four new partners. (Congratulations to Adina Storch, our law school classmate.)

As for Jeremy Pitcock, he has done what so many other lawyers have done lately: he’s hung up a shingle. He’s the founding partner of The Pitcock Law Group, in Nanuet, New York. From his website photo, it seems that the stress of the past several months has aged him (and perhaps added a few pounds to his frame).

Times aren’t the greatest for IP lawyers, but Pitcock’s professional skills and accomplishments can’t be denied (regardless of whatever personal issues he might have). We suspect that the world hasn’t seen the last of Jeremy S. Pitcock.

Dueling Suits Between Firm, Ex-Partner Are Dismissed [New York Law Journal via Am Law Daily]
Pitcock v. Kasowitz Benson [New York Law Journal]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:27 PM

furst?

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:29 PM

Very late on this, ATL! It is yesterday's news (from Am Law; and the decision came out last week I think).

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:29 PM

In pari delicto

Legal latin for a pox on both your houses.

4 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:30 PM

With a surname of Pitcock, I question his judgment for not having petitioned for a name change.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:31 PM

Eh, better late than never. Thanks for the update Lat.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:37 PM

Your cock would also have pits after nailing 12 Kasowitz women.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:37 PM

sometimes it is fun to watch lawyers poop on themselves. this is one of those times.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:38 PM

why would a bright young man who attended yls create a website to expose people's personal tragedies?

9 Posted by Attractive Nuisance | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:39 PM

#6 FTW. Love it.

10 Posted by samwell | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:40 PM

Oh my heavens! This fine young man was Captain of the MIT football team. Do I have to say it?

Do me in da butt!
Okaaaay!

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:40 PM

8 - Why are you reading said website?

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:10 PM

Why are you taking over so much of the writing Lat? Is it because Elie is black and Kash is a woman? Clearly prejudicial.

But really, why the hell would Elie have come to work for you in the first place? That was pretty stupid of a Harvard grad. ATL is career suicide. The only possible thing he could do afterward is hang a shingle because absolutely no one will ever hire somebody that told the secrets of lawyers on the internet. Even Cooley grads are smart enough to know they shouldnt hire someone who writes these stories. (Assuming that there is actually a Cooley grad in a position to hire someone.)

Elie- You better get a grip on the writing before Lat completely bumps you off.

Kash- You will be fine. Journalists are supposed to be gossips.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:11 PM

Hey FYI ==> The SEC's 2010 summer program for 2Ls [1Ls only in NYC] is accepting apps through 12/15/09. Also, the SEC's advanced commitment program for clerks and 3Ls is accepting apps and closes 12/15/2009. For experienced attorneys, our Denver, Atlanta, Washington, and Fort Worth offices are now accepting apps for staff positions. The pay isn't close to BigLaw but there are many other aspects of the job that make it worth considering. Good luck to those who apply.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:12 PM

Good one, PE. Very "funny."

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:14 PM

Kasowitz is so sleazy. Ignorant-sounding low-class bullies.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:36 PM

For an IP lawyer, you'd think he could create or pay someone to create a better web site. What a piece of junk.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:42 PM

Pitcock & Sussman?

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 6:49 PM

Huh-huh-huh. Hey Beavis, he said "cock." Get it? Pit--cock.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 7:24 PM

So much for his career.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 8:05 PM

Justice Shulman is a very good judge and he actually does his homework before ruling on any matters...which is not something I can say about a lot of judges in NYC. So, if Justice Shulman says it's all ridiculous, then I believe it.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 9:21 PM

I don't know how you can spin this as lose-lose. Kasowitz's suit was clearly aimed at scaring Pitcock into dropping his suit. I'd be surprised if they thought they would actually win. Having the Kasowitz suit gave the judge the ability to appear "evenhanded", despite the fact that Pitcock got his ass handed to him (deservedly).

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 11:13 PM

After what happened at his former firm, why is the other attorney at his new firm a woman?

23 Posted by Tibor | Permalink Thursday, October 8, 2009 11:53 PM

@14: Have my children

-NOT PE

24 Posted by Barack Marx | Permalink Friday, October 9, 2009 12:46 AM

I applaud the evenhanded nature of the judge's decision. It is important in our society that no one get more or less than another and here the judge sagely gave each party an equal share of nothing which is what my administration is striving to deliver to each american. The social fairness of this decision is indisputable and has my full support.

Barack x

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 9, 2009 3:10 AM

DiBlasi wasn't boasting about S&C having "represented" the Nazis, you stupid fuck -- Charney was running his mouth, during a settlement conference, about how it would be terrible for S&C's reputation. DiBlasi was just pointing out that S&C's reputation had survived much worse.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 9, 2009 1:37 PM

25 - No, YOU'RE the stupid fuck. Do you have a citation for your assertion?

What we have on the record so far, from the court filings in the case, is Charney's claim that DiBlasi told him: "we've represented the Nazis" and "we will crush you like a bug."

Post Your Comment