Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: Time To Pick A Jury

The day of reckoning is here for a partner accused of egregious sexual harassment.

The time for trial in Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, the high-profile sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Alexandra Marchuk against her former firm and one of its most prominent partners, Juan Monteverde, has arrived. And this shouldn’t come as a major surprise. Although many harassment and discrimination cases filed against law firms end up getting quietly settled to avoid bad publicity, this case always looked like it would go all the way (unlike Juan Monteverde, at least according to his version of events).

The Faruqis and Monteverde have vigorously disputed the allegations that Monteverde repeatedly harassed Alexandra Marchuk when she was a first-year litigation associate and then assaulted her the night of the firm holiday party. Instead, the Faruqis and Monteverde have developed an entire alternative theory: that Marchuk was obsessed with Monteverde and that their interactions were all consensual.

Now a jury will decide who’s telling the truth, as recounted by the New York Law Journal:

Attorneys are expected to pick a jury Monday and opening statements could follow the same day. Southern District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, 13-cv-1699, told the parties at a Jan. 7 conference that the trial will last about two weeks.

What will the jurors hear over those two weeks? There was some earlier dueling, arising out of motions in limine, over what will and will not be admitted into evidence:

At the Jan. 7 conference, attorneys sparred over whether Marchuk could introduce evidence about two other female attorneys who have left the firm and whom Marchuk claims were also harassed or subject to advances by Monteverde.

Hellerstein said he was concerned this evidence might result in a greater chance of prejudice and jury confusion, but “it is difficult to prove a hostile work environment without proof of the entire environment.” He added, “I have to balance this in a way that allows both sides to advance their cases to the jury.”

He told [Marchuk lawyer Harry] Lipman that he can briefly mention the two female attorneys in his opening and may be able to introduce those witnesses. But Hellerstein advised Lipman to be “very careful and restrained,” adding this case is involving Marchuk.

The Faruqi co-founders themselves could also be witnesses at trial.

On another motion, Hellerstein told Lipman that he couldn’t quantify at trial how much Monteverde is a rainmaker. Lipman had argued this would show whether the Faruqis had an financial incentive to turn a blind eye.

Lipman’s theory sounds eminently reasonable, at least to people with knowledge of how law firms operate and how big rainmakers are treated like kings. But perhaps he can still make this point in subtle ways, without financial data as to the size of Monteverde’s book of business or originations.

Sponsored

We hope to make it downtown to check out some of the proceedings this week. If any of our readers are attending the proceedings in person, we welcome your reports and insights, by email or by text message (646-820-8477).

Jury Selection to Begin in Faruqi Bias Case [New York Law Journal]
Judge In Faruqi Sex Assault Case Nixes ‘Rainmaker’ Evidence [Law360 (sub. req.)]

Sponsored