Drugs, Labor / Employment, Litigators, Marijuana, Sex

Update: Sex, Drugs, and 3000 Billable HoursDefendant law firm moves to strike 'scandalous' material.

By  
on

The case of Levy v. Sedgwick Detert Moran Arnold LLP — aka “Sex, Drugs, and 3000 Billable Hours” — is starting to look more like Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell with each new filing. Just as S&C did in the Charney case, the Sedgwick firm has filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint that it views as “scandalous” (i.e., of greatest interest to Above the Law readers).
From the affirmation in support of the motion:

3. This motion seeks to strike certain unnecessary, prejudicial and scandalous allegations made by Plaintiff Alan Levy (“Plaintiff” or “Levy”) in his employment discrimination action against his former employer, the law firm of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP (“Sedgwick” or the “Firm”) and Scott Haworth (“Haworth”) [pictured], the partner with whom he primarily worked.

4. The sole purpose of Plaintiff’s irrelevant and salacious allegations — regarding alleged adultery and drug use by Defendant Haworth — is to embarrass the Firm and Haworth and provide Levy with some emotional catharsis for the bitterness he bears.

Well, maybe not the sole purpose. Another purpose might be to embarrass the defendants into settling (just as S&C settled the Charney case). A third purpose — okay, not a purpose, but by a byproduct — might be entertaining Above the Law readers. Given that we edit a legal tabloid, we’re hoping the motion to strike gets denied.
Speaking of “salacious allegations,” this is not the first time Scott Haworth has been accused of inappropriate conduct.
An inflammatory allegation from a prior employment discrimination lawsuit, plus assorted observations about the Sedgwick firm website, after the jump.


In case you forgot the “salacious” allegations made by Alan Levy against Scott Haworth, here’s a reminder, from the motion papers:

Given the allegations against Haworth — which the defendants don’t deny, but do want stricken — we couldn’t help chuckling at the branding of the Sedgwick firm website:

And right below this on the firm website:

Sedgwick is an international trial and litigation law firm. We excel in the defense of difficult matters involving significant potential exposure, sensitive public relations issues or industry-wide policies.

Physician, heal thyself. Even if Levy doens’t prevail in the end, his case certainly does create “sensitive public relations issues” for SDMA.

Others talk. Sedgwick attorneys act.

Sponsored

Indeed. If Levy’s allegations are true, that might be part of the problem.
Now let’s look at the inflammatory allegation from an earlier lawsuit. In 2003, back when Scott Haworth worked at the firm of Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer, he was sued by William Daniels, a former paralegal at the firm.
According to a memorandum opinion by Judge Jack Weinstein (E.D.N.Y.), Daniels alleged the following:

Yikes. Haworth and the other defendants settled the Daniels case.
We reached out to Scott Haworth to see if he had any comment on the Daniels case and the allegation that he used the “n word,” but he did not respond.
P.S. We always enjoy the collision of the legal and the salacious. For another example of this — call it “Swingers and the Law” — check out this piece by plaintiff Alan Levy, which appeared in the Yale Law Journal Pocket Part.
Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Sex, Drugs, and 3000 Billable Hours

Sponsored

Topics