Biglaw, Partner Issues

Chadbourne Kicks Out Partner Suing Them Over Gender Discrimination

No matter what the firm says, they aren't finished dealing with Kerrie Campbell just yet.

By  
on
Kerrie Campbell

Kerrie Campbell

The twists and turns just keep on coming in the case of Kerrie Campbell versus Biglaw firm Chadbourne & Parke. When last we left the saga, Campbell (who’d sued the firm in a putative class action for $100 million alleging gender discrimination and unequal pay) was in a precarious position at her firm. The firm announced they were holding a vote to oust Campbell from the firm, calling it “the inevitable result of the choices Ms. Campbell has made.”

Campbell, through the firm representing her, Sanford Heisler Sharp, sought intervention from the court, saying that the firm’s announcement was designed to be an “undisguised threat” to potential class members. Arguments on the motion were heard Monday, April 17, and the judge refused to intervene. Today, the seemingly inevitable happened: the partners at Chadbourne & Parke voted to remove Kerrie Campbell from the firm.

In advance of the vote, Campbell provided the partnership with a three page memo (available in full on the next page), outlining the reasons she should remain a partner at the firm. Campbell’s memo included a defense of her legal work — and billable hours:

During my time at Chadbourne, I have delivered on my commitments to this Firm. I transferred all of my clients and matters from my previous firm to Chadbourne, and I generated substantial new business and matters from existing and new clients within my first two years with the Firm. I have originated dozens of new matters since joining the Firm. You do not have to take my word for it. Readily-available matrix and Intelsat data confirm my business origination, revenue generation and strong track record. During my time at the Firm, I have also been recognized as one of the Best Lawyers in America in First Amendment litigation. Even after the Management Committee’s decision to terminate me, I continued to bring in substantial revenue for the Firm – on the order of around $1 million in collections as billing partner during the last matrix year.

She also made an emotional appeal to prevent being voted off the island. Campbell is currently on medical leave following complications from surgery, and was not informed before the firm stopped making payments to her. For her final appeal, she highlighted the financial turmoil the move would place her and her family in:

The upcoming expulsion vote that the Management Committee has initiated will only exacerbate the Firm’s wrongful conduct. The expulsion will be ruinous to my professional reputation and place my entire family’s financial future at risk, as I am the sole earner.

Sponsored

Campbell’s plea also included a response to the allegation the lawsuit against the firm was filed to deflect attention from her performance at the firm or to garner attention:

I initiated the lawsuit to do what I believe is the right thing to make a change for the good in this Firm and in the legal profession. I brought the case only after my efforts to address my concerns internally with Chadbourne’s management proved unsuccessful.

Ultimately, the appeal was unsuccessful. The vote was recorded this morning, and according to a representative of the Sanford Heisler Sharp, approximately 70 partners voted for expulsion. Though a number of partners abstained from voting, the only one to vote to keep Campbell at the firm was Campbell herself.

Campbell’s attorney, David Sanford, made the following statement, which reflects the mindset that while this was a setback, the fight — that is, litigation — continues:

Chadbourne’s vote to expel Ms. Campbell was based on biased and incomplete information.  The result of the vote is, therefore, not surprising.  The vote is the culmination of Chadbourne’s series of retaliatory measures taken against their partner, Ms. Campbell, while she was out on medical leave.  We will be filing an amended complaint.

A trial in this case will bring to light the facts and we are confident that the truth will emerge.  This case, ultimately, will not be about Kerrie Campbell alone.  It will be about three class representatives, all female partners, with nearly 50 years of collective experience at Chadbourne who will prove a systemic pattern of discrimination in pay at the firm directed against female partners.

Sponsored

A spokesperson for the firm provided this statement:

At a meeting of the full Partnership today, the Partners of Chadbourne & Parke, voted to terminate Kerrie Campbell’s partnership interest. Ms. Campbell attended, spoke at, fully participated and voted as a partner at the meeting. No partner other than Ms. Campbell voted against the motion to expel.

This action was reluctantly taken 14 months after Ms. Campbell was asked to transition her practice to another firm and after numerous efforts to resolve this matter without resorting to such a measure.

The grounds for the decision of our Partners have been discussed at length by the Firm in court filings and need not be repeated here. However the action may be mischaracterized by her, Ms. Campbell’s decision to sue the Firm and her more recent medical condition were not a basis for today’s outcome and were expressly not considered by the Partners in reaching their decision. The bases existed long before her suit.

The Firm now looks forward to moving on as it prepares to enter a new chapter in its future.

Despite the language of closure the firm uses in its statement, as long as this case is ongoing, Chadbourne’s dealings with Kerrie Campbell are far from over.

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’
Biglaw Firm Will Vote To Oust Partner Suing Them For Gender Discrimination
Court Docs Allege Biglaw Firm Made ‘Undisguised Threat’ To Potential Class Members

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).

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,