David Lat

David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law. His writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Observer, Washingtonian magazine, and New York magazine. Prior to ATL, David worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as book reviews editor of the Yale Law Journal. David has received several awards for his work on ATL, including recognition as an ABA Journal Legal Rebel, a group of innovators within the legal profession, and inclusion as a member of the Fastcase 50, "the fifty most interesting, provocative, and courageous leaders in the world of law, scholarship, and legal technology." You can connect with him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter.

Posts by David Lat

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell — Or Should We Say, Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney?

By

H Rodgin Cohen 2 Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGWe just got back from dinner with lawyer friends, where everyone mourned the apparent passing of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Earlier today, it seemed that this lawsuit — which has riveted legal gossip circles — was on the brink of settlement.
As we pointed out this afternoon, something was definitely going on in the case. Aaron Charney was no longer listed on the S&C website. He wasn’t returning our emails, and when we finally reached him by phone, the usually chatty plaintiff refused to speak to us. When we contacted Sullivan & Cromwell partner Theodore Rogers, he was also quite cagey.
In short, the parties were acting weird — very weird. We felt a great deal of tension in the air. Something was definitely not “normal” (to the extent that anything about this lawsuit could be called “normal”).
We suspected a settlement was in the works (and even asked you to vote in a reader poll about the amount). But it turns out that nothing could have been further from the truth.
Reports of this lawsuit’s death have been greatly exaggerated (largely by yours truly). The legal warfare between Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell, far from going away, is actually ESCALATING. WOW!!!
Check out the fantastic comments to our last post. Or read this concise summary, emailed to us by a reader:

Sullivan & Cromwell filed its own action against Charney [yesterday] — and it was started by an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction!!!!

The case is on for next Thursday, February 8, before Judge Bernard Fried.

I think this means the case is far from settling, if S&C started their own lawsuit. I will try to get my hands on the complaint.

Mr. Charney, S&C is playing hardball — and you’re the ball. Biglaw is about to get medieval on your ass.
You’re going to be bending over for Messrs. Sullivan and Cromwell. And this time around, they won’t ask nicely.
ATL readers: Please email us with any information, tips, or rumors about the litigation. We are ESPECIALLY interested in getting our hands on S&C’s moving papers, which apparently were filed yesterday (February 1).
Treat this post as the open thread for all things Charney-licious. We will add, update, and tinker with it throughout the weekend. Refresh your browser for the latest — and check out the comments, too.
Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. For fans of Biglaw gossip, it’s going to be a bumpy — but hopefully entertaining — little ride.
Update (12:58 AM): Hey, guess what? You don’t need to read all 60+ comments to our most recent Aaron Charney post.
We’ve prepared a handy little digest of these comments. It appears after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell — Or Should We Say, Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney?”

193 Comments

Charles ‘Cully’ Stimson: You Won’t Have Him To Kick Around Anymore

By

charles stimson charles d stimson.jpgWe were wrong in speculating that the parties had decided to use Friday afternoon to quietly settle Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. As it turns out, S&C has actually opened up a new front in that war. How exciting!
But we were absolutely right in observing that “[w]hen a disgraced Washington political figure wants to resign, they wait until Friday after 3 PM.” Look at what the cat dragged in, at 4:05 PM: Charles “Cully” Stimson, the Pentagon official who made controversial remarks about lawyers who represent terrorism suspects.
Stimson didn’t last very long as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. But at least his tenure was longer than that of Jack Scheich as president of LeGal.
Defense Official Resigns Over Remarks [Associated Press via How Appealing]
Cully Stimson Resigns [WSJ Law Blog]
Earlier: For Breakfast at Cully Stimson’s House: Pop Tarts Filled With Crow
Make the Gitmo Detainees Pay for Their Own Damn Photocopies

2 Comments

Lawsuit of the Day: Laura Bush, Ask Your Hairdresser Where His Hands Have Been

By

Andre Chreky hair hairstylist hairstyle hairdresser Above the Law.jpgThe other day we were thinking about getting a massage. We consulted our trusty Washingtonian magazine, which has a “Spas We Love” article in its February 2007.
One appealing option was Andre Chreky. Washingtonian picked it as a top choice for the “busy executive” (that’s us). And it’s only a few blocks away from our apartment.
But now we’re wondering whether to take our business elsewhere. From the AP:

Andre Chreky, a prominent Washington hairdresser who used to cut first lady Laura Bush’s locks, is the target of his second sexual harassment lawsuit in a little more than four months.

An ex-employee said Chreky routinely demanded sexual favors, grabbed and touched her and made humiliating comments about her appearance and her husband’s sexual prowess. When she rebuffed him, Chreky retaliated by taking away clients, refusing to accommodate her during her pregnancy and ultimately firing her, the plaintiff, Ronnie Barrett, said in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Huge, huge news. There’s a straight male hairdresser? In DC?
Chreky allegedly has a pattern and practice of engaging in such harassment of his employees:

Lawyers for Chreky and his salon denied Barrett’s allegations. Chreky is fighting similar charges by another former employee, Jennifer Thong, who sued in September.

Civil actions are also expected from Pamela Pasties and Gina G’String, former employees who left the salon late last year.
P.S. As reported by the Washington Post, Chreky was previously ordered by the state of Virginia to pay child support to yet another former employee, after a paternity test found a 99.99 percent probability that he was the father of her son. But he took the matter to court, where he challenged the accuracy of the test and ultimately prevailed.
Hairdresser to the Elite Faces New Lawsuit [Associated Press]

9 Comments

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: What’s Going On?

By

Some of you question our frenzied speculation that a settlement in the case is imminent (or has already been reached). Fair enough. Maybe we’re getting all excited over nothing.
(It wouldn’t be the first time. Getting excited over nothing is a blogger’s job description.)
We decided to check the docket for any interesting entries. We tried looking up Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell using WebCivil Supreme, the docket search tool that’s available for free to the public. Alas, our search came up empty:
Charney docket.JPG
But we don’t know if the database we accessed is complete or comprehensive. Can someone with access to CaseTrac, a more advanced docket monitoring tool, please look up the Charney case, and tell us what you find? Thanks.
Update (11:55 PM): OMG — they are DEFINITELY not settling. Instead, Sullivan & Cromwell has turned around and sued Aaron Charney!!!
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

63 Comments

The Aaron Charney Settlement Calculator

By

Aaron Charney 2 headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett CharneyIn case you’re just joining us, pull up a chair, and listen up (or scroll down the page):

CHARNEY V. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL IS ABOUT TO SETTLE!!!

So plaintiff Aaron Charney probably doesn’t give a rat’s ass about how much your piddling law firm is now going to pay you going forward. He doesn’t care who has raised associate salaries and who hasn’t. He won’t have to work a Biglaw job for quite some time, we’re guessing.
We’re not very good at math. But with the help of our trusty calculator, we’ve put together some back-of-the-napkin figures for you.
Sullivan & Cromwell has about 160 partners. See here (158 partners, as of May 2006; AmLaw 100; subscription may be required). S&C’s profits per partner for 2005 clocked in at an impressive $2,410,000.
Last year, 2006, will probably be even better for the firm. Their M&A practice had a banner year. In the 2006 AmLaw 100, they came in at #5, with $2.41 million in PPP. In the 2007 rankings, we wouldn’t be surprised to see them right behind Wachtell and Cravath, at some figure in the $3 million range.
Anyway, the point is that S&C is FILTHY RICH. And there are only 160 partners to split up that huge pot of gold.
Here are some figures for your consideration. We assume (1) 160 partners, and (2) that the Charney settlement money comes straight out of partner pockets (without regard to taxes, insurance, etc.).
Charney Settlement — Reduction in Profits Per Partner
1. $100,000 — $625 per partner
Yeah, that’s right. Six hundred bucks a head. That’s not even Alexandra Korry’s weekly car service bill.
2. $500,000 — $3,125 per partner
Again, chump change to a Sullivan partner. Won’t even buy you a Brioni suit.
3. $1,000,000 — $6,250 per partner
In the AmLaw 100, anything under $10,000 in profits per partner is a ROUNDING ERROR.
4. $2,000,000 — $12,500 per partner
We’re still not impressed. This trivial amount will NOT determine whether S&C comes in 3rd, 4th, or 5th in the AmLaw 100 for 2007. In last year’s top 10, the smallest gap was a $20,000 difference in profits per partner, between #9 (Milbank) and #10 (Davis Polk).
Lexus ES 350 Above the Law.jpg5. $5,000,000 — $31,250 per partner
Okay, MAYBE this is the point at which S&C will cry uncle. If you’re an S&C partner, you could use this money to buy your wife a Lexus ES 350 for Valentine’s Day, to use as her “second car” when her Jaguar is in the shop (and to let your mother-in-law drive around when she comes up from Boca Raton).
So here’s what every single gay lawyer in America is wondering right now:

IS AARON CHARNEY SINGLE???

Update (11:55 PM): As it turns out, the premise of this post was COMPLETELY WRONG. The case is definitely not settling. Rather, Sullivan & Cromwell has turned around and sued Aaron Charney!!!
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

38 Comments

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Vote in Our Poll

By

drudge siren.gifUpdate: As it turns out, the premise of this post is COMPLETELY WRONG. The case is definitely not settling. Rather, Sullivan & Cromwell has turned around and sued Aaron Charney!!!
Friday afternoons are the perfect time to do things so that the world won’t notice. When a disgraced Washington political figure wants to resign, they wait until Friday after 3 PM. Holiday weekends are especially popular times to depart.
So maybe we shouldn’t be as surprised as we are. In case you’re just joining us, here’s the big news of the day:

CHARNEY V. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL IS ABOUT TO SETTLE!!!

To read more about why we think a settlement is imminent — assuming one hasn’t been reached already — scroll down the page, and follow the sirens. Or click here and here.
At the time that we created it, this ATL reader poll struck us as rather academic. But now, maybe your input can help the parties — assuming they haven’t reached a FINAL agreement, and are still going back and forth over numbers.
Here’s the poll. Please make your voice heard!

8 Comments

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: On the Brink of Settlement

By

drudge siren.gifUpdate: FYI, the speculation contained in this post turned out to be COMPLETELY WRONG. The case is definitely not settling. Rather, Sullivan & Cromwell has turned around and sued Aaron Charney!!!
We are guessing that Charney v. S&C is close to settling. In addition to the evidence recounted in our earlier post, here are a few more items:
1. One of you claims that mention of the suit has vanished from the NYS website. We haven’t verified this yet; we don’t even know if we can access it (since we don’t have an account or password for it). But if you can confirm, please email us.
2. We just got off the phone with Theodore Rogers, the Sullivan & Cromwell partner monitoring the suit in-house for S&C. He declined to comment. But we could tell, from the sound of his voice, that something is DEFINITELY afoot.
Rogers is a veteran litigator, one of the country’s top employment lawyers, who has been practicing for some two decades. But this eloquent advocate was reduced to a stammering schoolboy as soon as we uttered the words “Charney v. S&C.”
After he regained his composure, he declined to comment. But not all “no comments” are created equal. This “no comment” spoke volumes….
3. We haven’t heard back yet from S&C’s chairman, H. Rodgin Cohen, whom we have also contacted. We will let you know if and when we do.
4. Now Sullivan & Cromwell’s strategy of complete silence, which we expressed some doubt about, makes perfect sense. If you’re about to make the thing disappear completely, why even bother with damage control?
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

5 Comments

Breaking: Something Is Up With Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell

By

drudge siren.gifWhat is going on in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell? Here are some facts worth noting:
1. Aaron Charney’s bio has been removed from the Sullivan & Cromwell website (even though it remained there for quite some time after his lawsuit was filed). He is no longer listed on the site as an S&C attorney.
2. Aaron Charney has removed the Complaint from his website, www.aaroncharney.com.
Update: That was according to a commenter. But it seems to be back up (assuming if it was ever gone in the first place). See here (PDF).
3. Zach Fasman, the Paul Hastings partner handling the matter for S&C, has not returned our emails or calls.
4. Plaintiff Aaron Charney, who is usually an INSTANT emailer, has not responded to an email we sent him LAST NIGHT.
5. We just got off the phone with Aaron Charney. In the past, he has been very cordial and chatty with us. But today he DECLINED TO COMMENT.
And we could tell, from the sound of his voice on the line, that something is DEFINITELY going on. He was very, very nervous.
We pressed him a bit — “Can’t you tell us ANYTHING?” — but he kept on repeating that he could not comment. He was quite emphatic: “I really, really can’t comment right now.”
WHAT IS GOING ON???
DEVELOPING… DEVELOPING…
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

29 Comments

Skaddenfreude: Friday Afternoon Frenzy

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGAs we predicted, this Friday afternoon is turning out to be eventful in terms of associate salary news. Our last open comment thread is a beehive of activity. We’re in the process of following up and confirming various items.
Verified pay raise announcements from Latham & Watkins and Paul Hastings, after the jump.
If you can vouch for the Gibson Dunn memo posted in the comments to this thread, please send us an email. A blank email from a GDC address will suffice.
Update: Thanks everyone. The GDC memo, now confirmed, also appears after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Skaddenfreude: Friday Afternoon Frenzy”

253 Comments

Gallion & Spielvogel: We Are Not Worthy

By

Apparently our IP address is insufficiently prestigious to access their website, gsbarristers.com:
Gallion Spielvogel 4 gsbarristers Edward Gallion Steven Spielvogel.jpg
Messrs. Gallion & Spielvogel, we have a message for you. You style yourselves “barristers,” even though you went to U.S. law schools — Georgetown (Gallion) and U. Penn (Spielvogel) — and have no apparent barristers’ qualifications. Your lengthy and self-aggrandizing bios disclose no Inn of Court training nor pupillage experience. This is highly dubious (and questionable as a form of lawyer advertising).
So here’s what we have to say to you:

Gentlemen, we went to law school with barristers. We have blogged alongside barristers. Barristers are our friends. And you, gentlemen, are no barristers.

You are just two litigators. In Long Island.

24 Comments
Page 482 of 17361...478479480481482483484485486...1736