From a reader who uses MySpace (no, not a 14-year-old girl in Manassas):
Totally random, and not necessarily newsworthy, but the attached MySpace profile appeared randomly on my “cool new people” list when I logged in.
(Random spam like this, in the form of fake profiles — usually of attractive women from ex-Soviet republics, but apparently now of people who follow Charney v. S&C — is one of the many reasons we prefer Facebook.) facebook is better than myspace group [Facebook]
Poor guy. When you see a résumé from Aaron Charney next spring, before you toss it in the circular file, please double check: Are you sure it’s from the right — or wrong, as the case may be — Aaron Charney?
In other Charney news, Keeping Up With Jonas has created a Charney v. S&C Superstar Poll. To cast your vote, click here. (We know how we’re voting, but we’ll keep it to ourselves.) Aaron Charney [Facebook] Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell Superstar Poll [Keeping Up With Jonas]
As we’ve mentionedbefore, our interest in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell is flagging somewhat. It has been a while since the last salacious accusation, and now the case is starting to look like any other civil action — motion practice, discovery, etc.
Been there, done that. Yawn.
(Wake us up when Alexandra Korry gets deposed. Now THAT is gonna be good — although we’ll have to pray for a leaked transcript, since presumably it will be covered by a confidentiality order.)
On Friday, Charney filed his opposition to S&C’s Motion to Dismiss. Taking a page from Judge Jacobs’s (unopened) book, we haven’t bothered to read it. But here are three bloggers who have:
We realize that not everyone has been following Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the salacious case filed by former S&C associate Aaron Charney (at right), alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation by his extremely prestigious (and profitable) former firm. But for those of you who are interested in this matter, today we have a special treat.
Remember Gera Grinberg — the former colleague of Aaron Charney who some partners suspected was in an “unnatural relationship” with Charney? Grinberg, who nolonger works at S&C, is a critical figure in this case. But he has been an elusive figure to followers of this litigation. We’ve seen no pictures, and we know few facts about him.
Finally, after months of mystery, we’ve gotten our hands on a photograph of him. It’s kinda old, but hey, it’s better than nothing.
Check it out, after the jump.
LEWW is ashamed to admit that we have not followed the Charney versus Sullivan & Cromwell lawsuit with the attention it so richly deserves. Fortunately, there are other bloggers who’ve got you (and us) covered regarding coverage and analysis of this complex affair in Lat’s absence. Keeping Up With Jonas has a nice capsule summary of the three orders issued by Judge Fried in the matter yesterday, with links to the orders.
And Professor Art Leonard has this more detailed write-up.
Judge Fried denied without explanation a motion by Gera Grinberg’s attorney to have Grinberg’s deposition transcripts unsealed. Writes Leonard:
Attorney Grinberg worked closely with Aaron Charney as a fellow associate at S&C on a variety of client matters, and their close working relationship seems to have sparked the incidents upon which Charney bases his lawsuit. Grinberg was present at the meeting between Charney and S&C partners Vince DiBlasi and David Braff on January 31, the day before S&C discharged and sued Charney.
There is considerable dispute between Charney and S&C about what was said at that meeting, with Charney claiming that the only written record, which would back up his account, was made by Grinberg, who then turned his notes over to his attorney at that time for safekeeping. Charney has alleged that the Grinberg notes were improperly destroyed as part of a conspiracy between S&C and Edward Gallion, a lawyer S&C had retained to represent Grinberg. Amidst the skirmishing over motions to dismiss, Grinberg submitted to a deposition focused on what occurred at that meeting, but the transcript of the deposition has been sealed, and S&C’s lawyers criticized Charney for relying on and referring to that testimony in his amended complaint.
Leonard also reports that Grinberg, who was placed on paid leave by S&C, is no longer listed on the firm website.
Sullivan and Cromwell partner Sharon L. Nelles filed a notice of appearance yesterday in the Aaron Charney v. Sullivan and Cromwell case.
Do we overuse the term “fabulous” around here? Oh maybe. But Sharon Nelles has been certified as “fabulous,” by the mainstream media:
Perhaps most important point about this development, Ms. Nelles was selected by The American Lawyer as one of “The Young Litigators Fab 50″ — 50 litigators under 45 who are expected to be “leading the field for years to come.” Since this case will be around for a long time, a very long time, Sullivan was smart to select a lawyer predicted to have staying power.
We’ve only skimmed Sullivan & Cromwell’s latest Motion to Dismiss, filed just yesterday in the (in)famous case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. We haven’t had the chance to write up detailed thoughts on it.
Fortunately, others have. Like Professor Art Leonard, whose comprehensive analysis — including a helpful history of this tortured case — appears here.
And Lavi Soloway, who has taken the lead on the latest Charney developments. You can access his post, collecting some of the juiciest excerpts from the motion, by clicking here.
We did obtain comment on the S&C motion from Charney’s lawyers. David Holland, an attorney who works with Michael Kennedy on the case, had this to say:
“Apparently, Sullivan & Cromwell not only represented the Nazis, but seem to have adopted Dr. Mengele’s techniques to torture the facts and law of this case.”
Well, maybe not quite. But we do find it interesting that, in the recent wave of publicity over Aaron Charney’s amended complaint, Sullivan & Cromwell’s public relations team at Sard Verbinnen reached out to us. They emailed the following statement to us:
“This is just a rehash of his original, now dismissed, complaint with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations. We will continue to defend the Firm vigorously against these same baseless claims. Sullivan & Cromwell remains committed to fostering an inclusive workplace environment for all of its lawyers and staff and is proud of our track record of promoting diversity.”
It’s not a particularly exciting statement; but we were excited to receive it. Although they’ve been working extensively with the mainstream media over the past few months, Sard Verbinnen — which S&C hired specifically for L’Affaire Charney (a different media relations shop handles the firm’s general publicity) — had never contacted us before.
And we weren’t the only “new media” types to get the message. The PR gurus also emailed their statement to two leading Charneybloggers: Lavi Soloway and Professor Arthur Leonard.
Not to be outdone, Aaron Charney’s lawyers spoke to us on the phone. We had a quick conversation the other day with Dan Alterman, of Alterman & Boop, who had this to say:
“The amended complaint is a wonderful opportunity for us to get this case focused back on the main issues — especially the discrimination and retaliation claims.”
P.S. Please vote for Jordin Sparks in American Idol!!! Call 1-866-IDOLS-02, or text “VOTE” to 5702.
Even Professor Althouse, a diehard Blake Lewis fan, kind of agrees: “So, okay, let Jordin win. Blake will be fine. It will be better this way.”
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
If your firm is in ‘go’ mode when it comes to recruiting lateral partners with loyal clients, then take this quiz to see how well you measure up. Keep track of your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
1. Does your firm have a clearly defined strategy of practice groups that are priorities of growth for your office? Nothing gets done by random chance, but with a clear vision for the future. Identify the top practice areas for which you wish to add lateral partners. Seek input from practice group leaders and get specifics on needs, outcomes, and ideal target profiles.
2. In addition to clarifying your firm’s growth strategy, are you still open to the hire of a partner outside of your plan? I’ve made several placements that fit this category. The partner’s practice was not within the strategic growth plan of my client, but once the two parties started talking with each other, we all saw how it could indeed be a seamless fit. Be open to “Opportunistic Hires.” You never know where your next producing partner might come from, so you have to be open to it. I will be the first to admit that there is a quirky element of randomness in recruiting.
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!