Add RSS RSS

Lawsuit of the Day: Sex, Drugs, and 3000 Billable Hours

Alan Levy Alan R Levy lawyer.jpgWhen ex-associates sue their former firms, a fun time is had by all — with the possible exception of the litigants. Dirty laundry is aired, often for the amusement of onlookers. Here are some classics:

Today’s Lawsuit of the Day, Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP (PDF), is a similar suit. Alan Levy (pictured), a former associate at Sedgwick, alleges that his employment was terminated on the basis of disability — to wit, severe depression and a breakdown, brought on in part by the abusive treatment he received at the hands of a partner, Scott Haworth.

So, what was the alleged abuse inflicted upon Levy by Haworth?

First things first. Where did this all go down?

Levy SDMA 2 Alan Levy v Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP Scott Haworth.jpg

Ah, 125 Broad Street. Misery loves company.

Levy SDMA 1 Alan Levy v Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP Scott Haworth.jpg

Covering up a partner’s affair — what’s the billing code for that? Firm Admin?

Levy SDMA 3 Alan Levy v Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP Scott Haworth.jpg

Marijuana? This reflects poorly on Scott Haworth. Hard-charging litigators use cocaine, not pot.

Those are the juiciest bits; the rest of the complaint, which gets into a “he said / they said” regarding whether and when Levy could return to work after taking medical leave, is less exciting. But you can access it if you like by clicking on the link below.

P.S. Disclosure: We have known the plaintiff, Alan Levy, for a number of years, dating back to the college parliamentary debate circuit.

Alan Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP: Complaint [PDF]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:11 AM

If I had a fast comp, I would be first much more often

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:12 AM

Is Levy seriously a man? Grow some fucking balls.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:13 AM

What a pussy

4 Posted by Affirmative Walrus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:16 AM

Let's review: homosexual man; homosexual woman; black woman; disabled man.

Victims all.

$250 million is clearly not enough to compensate those who have suffered under America's oppressive thumb.

If anything, Jeremiah Wright understated America's ugliness when he called it "The land of the greed, and home of the slave."

I hope that the President listened intently during his 20+ years of spiritual mentoring at the hands of this prophet.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:16 AM

Anyone gotten an offer yet from DOJ Legal Honors?

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:18 AM

Elie, Lat, Kash: You guys should do a post on whether firms are rescinding offers for people that failed the bar

7 Posted by Trotsky | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:18 AM

3000 hours a year, which works out roughly to 60 hours a week ...
Damn

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:19 AM

Felching?

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:20 AM

He might win. Wow.

This is why stealth reviews and pre-textual firings are a bad thing.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:21 AM

Kash- will you sit on my facebook?

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:23 AM

I know Scott Haworth but can't figure out from where. Where was he BEFORE Sedgewick and BEFORE Lester?

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:23 AM

"Marijuana? This reflects poorly on Scott Haworth. Hard-charging litigators use cocaine, not pot"

Lol

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:23 AM


ATL should have a "Worst Partner to work for" competition, tourney style.

14 Posted by JaKe Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:24 AM

3,000 hours is a paltry sum. When I was a summer at my Father's preeminent peer law firm, I worked over 12 hours, 7 days a week, and was on track to reach 4,500 billables for the year.

Cogs: get to work.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:26 AM

In a prior (law firm) life I worked for some real gems of human beings, where (in my opinion) some had no problem with saying really, really fucked up things about themselves, other people (at the firm), etc. to me (as an associate) that would make a plaintiff's lawyer drool. I kept my ears open and my mouth shut.

Don't know what happened here, but some partners really have zero common sense/restraint in the office. Maybe it's because they spend their entire lives there and have no other outlet, or want to seem cool/relevant to the younger generation. Whatever.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:26 AM

If it didn't involve forced-felching, it didn't happen.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:27 AM

Before we go out on a Walrus hunt, my tribe grinds up dried Walrus penis and snorts it to give us super human strength.

The Most Interesting Eskimo in the World

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:29 AM

Why are black people always angry and yelling?

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:31 AM

If all that is true, this partner will set a good bar for what are acceptable ways to treat associates. Can't wait for the next lawsuit where the associate complaints of IIED solely by being yelled at by a partner and made to work 3000 hours.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:32 AM

I know Haworth from somewhere. Where did he work before Sedgewick, before Lester and before McCarter & English?

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:32 AM

A partner I used to work for told me all kinds of shit about his personal life. We'd be in a car driving off to court and he'd tell me about drug use, wild parties, etc. I had enough sense to keep my mouth shut about my own life. When he spilled his guts to me, I always wondered, "Doesn't he have any friends he could tell his stories to? Why in the world would he want to share all this personal info with an associate he barely knows?" The whole thing was fucked up. I guess it's not all that uncommon, but it was really fucking weird to me.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:33 AM

18- same reason they are generally stupid and can't speak English properly. Relic of their recent simian past.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:34 AM

Maybe I should just sue, I walked in one my non-equity partner bosses having sex with a married equity partner. My retinas and my innocence burned away in a single instant. Granted it was a Saturday, but still!

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:35 AM

21, 15 here, echo 100%.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:35 AM

Speaking for former associates suing people, whatever happened to the WSGR associate who sued CBS/Survivor?

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:36 AM

Speaking for former associates suing people, whatever happened to the WSGR associate who sued CBS/Survivor?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:38 AM

How do we know God didn't make Adam
black?

Ever try to take a rib from a black man??

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:39 AM

@23: Seriously? Ick.

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:40 AM

Quickly - somebody call the wah-mbulance.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:41 AM

19 read the complaint, dipshit. It's not IIED, it's an FMLA claim for pretextual termination (with no severance, incidentally) while on unpaid disability under doctor's orders.

31 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:45 AM

I have printed a copy of this lawsuit to show to the management committee as support for my idea to recruit attorneys overseas. This lawsuit is an example of what happens when a disgruntled and no longer effective attorney is let go from the firm. Is billing 3,000 hours per year an impressive feat? Absolutely. However, a real professional does not use the excuse of mental breakdown to air the secrets of the firm or its partners. Associates complain that partners don't take the time to mentor them. Well in this case, it would appear that Mr. Haworth was grooming the plaintiff and assisting in his professional development. How does the associate repay Mr. Haworth? By breaching confidences, turning against him and lodging some very damaging accusations of drug abuse and marital infidelity. I would not be surprised if the plaintiff of this lawsuit graduated from a lowly regarded law school that should have taught him a proper honor code. Firms need to start recruting from overseas. We are handcuffed in our efforts to manage firm personnel by OSHA, Family Leave Act, EEOC, sexual harrassment, hostile work environment and an assortment of foolish causes of action that have been created by the liberal malaise that racks this nation's health. By hiring foreign based attorneys, we can limit our exposure to these ridiculous lawsuits by cutting off jurisdiction. It disgusts me to read these types of lawsuits which only prove that American educated attorneys suffer from an obscene sense of self-entitlement. That is all.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:54 AM

PE - "By hiring foreign attorneys, we can limit our exposure to these ridiculous lawsuits by cutting off jurisdiction."

Been to law school much?

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:55 AM

Don't know Haworth, but I already like him. Toughen up, Levy, you little rat.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:55 AM

Don't know Haworth, but I already like him. Toughen up, Levy, you little rat.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:56 AM

http://www.sdma.com/scott-l-haworth/

36 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:57 AM

This comment is addressed to post no. 32.

Yes, but apparently my statement went over your dimunitive sized brain.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:58 AM

2 & 3 ftw. Who cares about this stuff? Only the 3000 hours part sucks. Everything else just makes work more interesting.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:01 PM

About twenty years ago an associate at PE's firm worked himself to death. He routinely billed over 3000 hours per year and rarely left his office. He died of a nervous breakdown.

PE and the other partners mockingly called the associate "Prometheus." The firm settled for chump change with the associate's family.

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:02 PM

Ladies and Gentleman, please welcome, the co-host of CNN's Crossfire, famed political consultant, the raging Cajun, Mr. James Carville
James Carville: Thank you, Thank you Dean Pritchard. It's an honor and a pleasure to be here sir.
Dean Pritchard: Topic number one. What is your position on the role of government in supporting innovation in the field of biotechnology?
James Carville: Well Dean, I'm? I'm glad that you asked that question...
Frank: Uhhh... Actually, I'd like to jump in and take that one Jimmy, If you don't mind.
James Carville: Have at it, Hoss.
Frank: [Frank takes a drink of water, makes a funny face and grunts] Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.
Frank: [Frank grunts, makes a face and goes limp]
[audience applauds]
Frank: What happened? I blacked out
Dean Pritchard: That was interesting. ha ha. Thank you very much. And, uh, your rebuttal? Mr. Carville.
James Carville: Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect.
Frank: That's the way you do it! That's the way you debate!

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:02 PM

32, your point would be more credible if you didn't omit the crucial word "based" that was in the original quote. Get sanctioned or sued for malpractice much?

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:06 PM

I used to work with Scott Haworth. I thought he was the most obnoxious pr**ck on the planet. He pretended to be a devoted family man but there were always rumors about his affairs. There was also a rumor that LSKD forced him to attend counseling after he had an affair with one of the associates. Guess it didn't work all that well.

Levy is in for a hard fight. Scott is a capable, very aggressive litigator and will do everything possible to crush Levy professionally and personally. But I hope against hope that Scott gets his balls nailed to the wall on this.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:07 PM

38, where did you hear the "Prometheus" associate story from? I too heard or read about this story some time ago.

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:08 PM

join 32 - PE, your U.S. based firm can't avoid personal jurisdiction by hiring foreign attorneys...I guess you might have a forum non conveniens argument, but not jurisdictional

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:09 PM

23 - And you didn't ask to join in?

45 Posted by evrenseven | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:11 PM

Imagine how bad the negotiation sessions were before a lawsuit was even filed. This guy probably threatened to divulge adultery and drug use and the managing partner just told him to go F himself.

The basic rule of litigation is that if you're in court, things have already gone horribly wrong if reasonable minds haven't come to an agreement before spending ass tons of money on lolyers in court.

46 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:12 PM

Post no. 43 proves the sorry state of American legal education. Whoever takes the time to edify post no. 43 gets a gold star.

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:17 PM

I worked at Sedgwick San Francisco - Jesus, what a crappy firm. Bunch on inbred aholes.

avatar
48 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:18 PM

46 proves the sorry state of Sullivan & Cromwell

avatar
49 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:21 PM

so this asshole buddied up to the partner; bonded over "guy things"; got all the good work as the leutenant (that looks funny but I dont care to spellcheck); had a nervous breakdown due to billing 3000 hours; and now he's complaining?

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:25 PM

If ESPN can fire Steve Phillips for fucking a subordinate co-worker, this stupid-assed firm can fire this pig Haworth for banging associates.

FIRE HAWORTH!!

By the way, has his wife left him? Or is she a greedy gold digger who wants to hang on to that seven figure partner salary at the expensive of being humiliated?

Aawesome!

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:27 PM

46,
My aunt was a nanny for a Sullivan & Cromwell partner's kids in the 1980s. Her boss told her the story. She knows PE and has heard him and others joke about it. She begged me to avoid law school. Wish I had listened.

- 38

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:27 PM

This partner has committed adultery, and has broken the Ten Commandments. As such, he will have to answer to God and Jesus, who will decide his ultimate fate.

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:34 PM

No moar muslims, please. They just kill people. That is so TTT.

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:35 PM

Pathetic associate complaining about nothing.

avatar
55 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:36 PM

51 - what a shock that PE would joke about a firm employee's death! we all remember him making fun of that D.C. lawyer's in-office suicide...PE is just a bitter old man despite his allegedly obscene wealth and stellar legal career...seek help PE

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:39 PM

if Partner Emeritus works as a Senior Counsel for S&C in NY, went to Harvard...he could be one of 13 lawyers...which one...i have no idea...they all look incredibly old, white, and grumpy.

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:43 PM

56 - sounds like PE is a litigator from his posts, perhaps that narrows the list

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:47 PM

PE

If attorneys are overseas where there are no PI rules in place then there can be no suit. . . .Gold star please. . . .I'll meet you at Ricks for a early dinner and some entertainemnt, you going to be holding court at the usual table?

59 Posted by Res Ipsa | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:49 PM

This lawsuit gives me an idea for a new reality show:

Place ten FTTs in a house, and film their interactions with each other. The self-entitledness, self-importance, pettiness, incessant one-uppedness, idiocy, nonsensical tripe, and utter lack of work ethic would be even more glaring than in the Real Housewives series.

Plus, preoccupying the FTTs would remove them from their day jobs of enabling corporate crime, which would create a service to society.

avatar
60 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:51 PM

Stupid Levy should have demanded that the partner share the drugs and the women.

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:54 PM

In the old days this was simply "work hard, play hard."

62 Posted by Wilhemina Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:57 PM

This responds to my son's post at 14 and my husband's at 31.

Jacob, I know you enjoy joining your father in his endless online prattle about "preeminent peer lawfirms" but please remember the firm where you "worked" was your grandfather's firm, not your father's. Please also recall you were 14 years old at the time and the tnearly 4500 hours you "billed" was spent playing video games and harassing secretaries. Remember, although it is too late for your father to grow up and make something of himself I still have hope, albeit diminishing, that you will become a man of character.

Wilfred, the management committee at father's firm has asked me to curtail your spurious submissions. Although they found the first of your submissions suggesting a mixer between summer associates and various sex workers inappropriate yet amusingly ribald, they find your latest submission re outsourcing american legal jobs boorish and tiresome. If you do not desist I am told they will turn off your computer and lock the door to your office meaning you will spend more time at home -- a result I cannot abide. If you hope to see receive another penny to fund your dissolute lifestyle please leave the members of the committee be.

Wilhemina Sullivan Emeritus

avatar
63 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 12:58 PM

58 - that's not jurisdictional defense...if the offending partner were in NY and the plaintiff-associate were overseas, the associate could still sue the firm in the U.S. for conduct engaged in by the partner in the U.S....if PE wants to move the entire partnership of S&C overseas or limit overseas associates to working for overseas partners to avoid lawsuits, then have at it

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:04 PM

Here a bit of advice to Sedgwick's defense counsel:

Great cross-X material is plaintiff's claim that he billed a minimum of 8.2 horus every day, 365 days a year for several years. That on it's face is: a) inherently unbelievable or b) clear evidence of fraud/deceit as to how the firms bills clients, msot likely amounting to a felony in NY.

So plaintiff is either: a) a patholigical liar or b) as an employee of Sedgwick (with his "hours" billed approved by the firm, he has admitted to a conspiracy with the firm to commit a felony to defraud its clients.

On second thought, never mind.

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:06 PM


58 is obviously PE. Transparent moron. Ever heard of the alien torts claims act? Plesse die u worthless 1L

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:08 PM

56 here again.

The story does not add up. The most senior litigation counsels are Cannon and MacCrate. Both are wonderful gentlemen and Im 120% sure dont even know ATL exists.

Ehh...but nice schtick from the guy who created PE...he should get his own show like Seth MacFarlane.

67 Posted by Douchie | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:10 PM

Elie's recent speech!! Shockingly coherent:

http://www.junglewalk.com/popup.asp?type=a&AnimalAudioID=6056

68 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:11 PM

This comment is addressed to post no. 63.

Why don't you go to Mexico and certify a class action lawsuit (in a U.S. Federal Court) on behalf of Mexican employees of GM Motors and allege OSHA violations that are happening in Mexico City on a daily basis. I am sure you can make a name for yourself if you were to undertake the cause of the mistreated Mexican employees that are being victimized, according to US law, in Mexico by a monolithic corporate giant such as GM Motors. Here is a practitioners tip: before filing said class action lawsuit, seek relief from 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) in GM Motors' current Chapter 11 case.

avatar
69 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:13 PM

Hey PE u aren't fooling anyone. It is obvious that you and you alone post all the guest comments about PE. No attorney would ever mistake u for anything greater than an offer-less 2L or 3L. Fact. Now give it a rest. Get a life.

avatar
70 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:17 PM

Tip - lame straw man PE. Give it a rest and go back to grading 1L briefs like the TA that u are.

avatar
71 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:18 PM

Why do people get from pretending to be some character? Is there something missing in this guy's life?

OR

Is this the editors themselves making obnoxious comments to bring in more hits to their worthless news?

avatar
72 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:36 PM

PE, you really are senile. You've now switched from a jurisdictional argument to a choice-of-law argument. Your original argument was that your firm would "cut off jurisdiction" by hiring overseas employees. So keep changing the subject now that you know your jurisdictional argument is wrong. 63

avatar
74 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:40 PM

65, you are incorrect. The alien tort claims act is geared toward protecting aliens from human rights abuses. The alien tort claims act does not allow an alien to request that foreign sovereignty be ignored and that US law supplant their local laws. If you feel you are correct, then I suggest you take up PE's proposed crusade in comment 68.

avatar
75 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:42 PM

PE is David Lat.

Remember when Lat was an undercover blogger for so many years?

He just misses those times and PE is his answer.

avatar
76 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:42 PM

Haworth actually sounds like a pretty cool guy. I'd get beers with him.

avatar
77 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:50 PM

56/66 - could PE be William Ziegler, S&C litigator and senior counsel (both Harvard undergrad and law)?

http://www.sullcrom.com/zieglerwilliama/

78 Posted by Douchie | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:52 PM

77 - too old. he wouldn't know how to use the internets...

avatar
79 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 1:55 PM

78 - I suspect you're right, Ziegler is in his 80s, but I do think PE is an S&C senior counsel (as opposed to a law student troll making up a character). 77

avatar
80 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:07 PM

I would have thought Partner was real IF i did not see his timestamps. I mean the guy is posting in this website every hour by the hour every day.

Explain to me why the most Senior lawyer in one of the most prestigious law firms in the country would even spend an ounce of time on a toilet basher website like ATL making inflammatory comments?? Of all places he could be spending his time. COMEON!!!

avatar
81 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:09 PM

Has ATL covered the Toyota lawsuits? This is where one of the former Toyota attorneys turned on his former emplyer and became a whistle blower alledging Toyota hid evidence in product liability cases.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/29/cbsnews_investigates/main5273636.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

avatar
82 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:20 PM

80 - you would think that's right, but PE has answered that question before, saying he worked hard for many years and gets to spend his office time now doing whatever he wants, and he enjoys posting on ATL...I don't know for sure, but I think he's real (too angry and too big an asshole to be a made-up character, I don't think he's that good of an actor)

avatar
83 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:28 PM

PE me pone bien bellaca!!! - UM Law Alum.

avatar
84 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:29 PM

Carrie Prejean in "The laying on of hands"

avatar
85 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:33 PM

i never share my weed with freakin associates. bill u

avatar
86 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:33 PM

30 - you have no sense of sarcasm. The point was that if a suit like this works, and other similar suits are filed with a lower and lower bar as to what is acceptable behavior, before we know it, associates will bring IIED lawsuits simply for being yelled at and being made to work hard.

avatar
87 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 2:41 PM

The S&C associate described may have been Ralph Jones (Duke 1989). He was a gentlemen and a scholar.

avatar
88 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 3:32 PM

PE has stated that he has over 40 years as a lawyer, so his JD/LLB would be from between 1960 to 1968.

avatar
89 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 6:17 PM

Deposition cross:

Q; Mr. Levy, you do admit that you often lied at the request of Scott Haworth?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you descfribe yourself as an accomplished liar?

A. How are you defining accomplished?

Q: Do you have an opinion regarding whether Mrs. Haworth believed you when you lied to cover up her huisband's extramaritial affair?

A: I think she believed me.

Q: Please tells us how a jury could ossibly tel whether you are lying now?

A: I don't know.

Q: What is the best estimate of the number of occasions on which you lied at the request of Mr. Haworth?

A: More than a dozen.

Q: Why did you lie for him?

A: I wanted to keep my job.

Q: What was your monthly salary?

A. $30,000.

Q: what is the amount that you are seeking in this lawsuit?

A: $2 millon dollars.

Q: I have no further questions for this witness.

HINT: The plainitff just pleaded himself out of any chance of a recover in this case.

avatar
90 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 10:14 PM

If you are still in law school and happen to be currently taking trial-ad please refrain from posting mock examinations ... HINT: That means you #89.
OR
If you have graduated from law school and have NEVER actually asked a witness a question at even a deposition, please refrain from posting mock examinations and go back to document review ... HINT: That may also apply to #89

avatar
91 Posted by Auduboner | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 10:59 PM

32: "Diminutive sized?" Poorly put - "sized" is superfluous. Didn't they teach you to write properly at that second-rate firm? But then again, I guess "superfluous" applies to just about everything you say...

As to the main topic... So plaintiff worked for a partner who was an arrogant, self-centered, insecure sociopath? Sounds like a foreseeable circumstance to me... I'd say he assumed the risk.

avatar
92 Posted by Auduboner | Permalink Friday, November 6, 2009 11:10 PM

75: Win!

PE is the future persona Lat wished for himself before he fell of the Track. Old dreams die hard, don't they?

avatar
93 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, November 7, 2009 3:10 PM

I worked with Haworth for seven years and Levy for a few. While Haworth may not be the easiest person to work for, he was good to Levy. I specifically remember him being actually quite compassionate to Levy when Levy had a previous illness. Levy was a tool- a smart one but devoid of social skills and not a team player. He had stress issues years back that had nothing to do with Haworth. If the worst that he can come up with is alleged pot possession on one occassion, that's pretty lame. As far as the sex stuff, I doubt Levy's fragile mind was harmed by it- he and his wife were known swingers in Jersey - bunch of websites with this info so it's public, so he's one to talk (besides, the rest of us should sue him for ruining our fantasy worlds with this fact- see photo). It's absurd to sue your boss or anyone else for their alleged affairs. Levy was good for grunt work and that was it- he was a creep who could draft motions. Big whoop. I doubt very much he was any sort of a star at Sedgwick. This lawsuit is mean-spirited and vindictive crap.

avatar
94 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, November 7, 2009 3:11 PM

I worked with Haworth for seven years and Levy for a few. While Haworth may not be the easiest person to work for, he was good to Levy. I specifically remember him being actually quite compassionate to Levy when Levy had a previous illness. Levy was a tool- a smart one but devoid of social skills and not a team player. He had stress issues years back that had nothing to do with Haworth. If the worst that he can come up with is alleged pot possession on one occassion, that's pretty lame. As far as the sex stuff, I doubt Levy's fragile mind was harmed by it- he and his wife were known swingers in Jersey - bunch of websites with this info so it's public, so he's one to talk (besides, the rest of us should sue him for ruining our fantasy worlds with this fact- see photo). It's absurd to sue your boss or anyone else for their alleged affairs. Levy was good for grunt work and that was it- he was a creep who could draft motions. Big whoop. I doubt very much he was any sort of a star at Sedgwick. This lawsuit is mean-spirited and vindictive crap.

avatar
95 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, November 7, 2009 3:11 PM

I worked with Haworth for seven years and Levy for a few. While Haworth may not be the easiest person to work for, he was good to Levy. I specifically remember him being actually quite compassionate to Levy when Levy had a previous illness. Levy was a tool- a smart one but devoid of social skills and not a team player. He had stress issues years back that had nothing to do with Haworth. If the worst that he can come up with is alleged pot possession on one occassion, that's pretty lame. As far as the sex stuff, I doubt Levy's fragile mind was harmed by it- he and his wife were known swingers in Jersey - bunch of websites with this info so it's public, so he's one to talk (besides, the rest of us should sue him for ruining our fantasy worlds with this fact- see photo). It's absurd to sue your boss or anyone else for their alleged affairs. Levy was good for grunt work and that was it- he was a creep who could draft motions. Big whoop. I doubt very much he was any sort of a star at Sedgwick. This lawsuit is mean-spirited and vindictive crap.

avatar
96 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, November 8, 2009 3:22 PM

93-95,

Link?

How does a socially awkward lawyer who bills 3,000 hours a year have time to swing?

avatar
97 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, November 8, 2009 4:11 PM

Read the complaint. It is pretty good. Not over the top. Not asking for too much.

avatar
98 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, November 9, 2009 2:05 PM

Really Pathetic!!!

Alan Levy is a scary nut!!!

avatar
99 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, November 9, 2009 4:10 PM

I worked with both Levy and Haworth. Haworth is a little man clearly making up for a little penis. Alan was not Scott's last victim. That guy left the firm before he too suffered the same fate as Alan. I hope that Haworth gets fired.

avatar
100 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, November 9, 2009 6:47 PM

At first I thought the folks at Sedgwick Detert were idiots for letting this case get public, but I now see their genius. With accusations like sex and drugs, their sending the message to future associates that Sedgwick Detert is the most awesomest place to work in the world.
Lat, please please please get the deposition transcripts and post them! They should be a great read!

avatar
101 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, November 9, 2009 6:47 PM

At first I thought the folks at Sedgwick Detert were idiots for letting this case get public, but I now see their genius. With accusations like sex and drugs, their sending the message to future associates that Sedgwick Detert is the most awesomest place to work in the world.
Lat, please please please get the deposition transcripts and post them! They should be a great read!

avatar
102 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:32 PM

I think I'm in love with PE -- and his whole "family" of characters. He is the only thing worth reading in these comments. The rest of you are humorless goats.

Post Your Comment