Biglaw Firm Will Vote To Oust Partner Suing Them For Gender Discrimination

This is the juiciest Biglaw lawsuit in a while.

Kerrie Campbell

Kerrie Campbell

Chadbourne & Parke — soon to be known as Norton Rose Fulbright — isn’t too pleased with partner Kerrie Campbell. And that isn’t much of a surprise; after all, she is (along with two other named plaintiffssuing them for $100 million in a purported class action alleging gender discrimination and unequal pay. But of course — because this case has been juicy AF — the firm has publicly announced that they don’t want anything to do with Campbell, revealing that they’ve been trying to get rid of her for awhile.

The statement is on the long side,  but well worth the time:

A meeting of the partnership of Chadbourne & Parke LLP will be scheduled to consider and vote upon a motion to expel Kerrie Campbell from the partnership. Early last year, Chadbourne’s Management Committee asked Ms. Campbell to voluntarily leave the Firm when it became impossible to ignore, even after a very short time with the Firm, her failure to deliver in the way she represented when she joined Chadbourne, her exhibiting questionable legal judgment, her serious and disruptive failures in practice management, and her displaying poor personal judgment, among other things. This was done quietly and carefully in order to give her the chance to achieve better results with a fresh start elsewhere. She decided not to do so and, instead, chose to pursue baseless claims in the cynical pursuit of a big and underserved payday. The Firm has been exceedingly patient and sought to avoid having a formal expulsion vote if other outcomes were possible. As Chadbourne prepares for a new future, the choices Ms. Campbell has made have left the Firm no alternative but to seek to bring this relationship to an end in this manner. No matter how she will try to mischaracterize it, this decision is the inevitable result of the choices Ms. Campbell has made.

So, perhaps unsurprisingly, they’re posturing that the entire case was an attempt by Campbell to cover up her subpar work. That doesn’t explain the other plaintiffs, but it appears to be central to the firm’s defense of Campbell’s claims.

Because the parties in this case seem to recognize the court of public opinion is still very much in play, Campbell’s lawyer, David Sanford, had his own response. As the American Lawyer reports:

“By calling the planned expulsion vote ‘the inevitable result of the choices Ms. Campbell has made’ in bringing suit against the firm, Chadbourne openly admits that the vote to terminate Ms. Campbell is retaliatory,” Sanford said. “Unfortunately for Norton Rose Fulbright, this discriminatory and overtly retaliatory act is a liability that will not disappear with the firm’s upcoming merger. We will pursue discovery to determine Norton Rose Fulbright’s role in directing or approving Ms. Campbell’s expulsion.”

Sponsored

Those are fightin’ words. Which, since this is an active litigation, makes sense.

Earlier: Biglaw Firm Hit With $100 Million Class Action Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Chadbourne Swings Back Over Gender Bias Suit
These Biglaw Partners Are Super Pissed Someone Filed A Class Action Lawsuit On Their Behalf
Chadbourne Class Action Lawsuit Gets Juicy AF — Lawyer Fires Back Against Criticism
Biglaw Pay Discrimination Case Adds A New Plaintiff
There’s Now (Allegedly) Videotape In The Latest Biglaw Lawsuit Twist
Biglaw Firm Claims Partners Are Not Employees
3rd Former Partner Files Suit Against Chadbourne Over Unequal Pay
Biglaw Merger Means The End Of ‘Chadbourne & Parke’


headshotKathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored