Biglaw

what a jerk rudeness middle finger obscene gesture.jpgIn light of our non-stop coverage of (1) Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell and (2) the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar, we found the timing of this New York Times article — “Help, I’m Surrounded By Jerks” — to be rather uncanny. Not surprisingly, it’s currently the “Most E-mailed Article” on the NYT website.
Law schools figure prominently in the growing field of “jerk research”:

Next month the Career and Professional Development Center at Duke Law School will for the first time offer a workshop called Dealing With Conflict and Difficult People. In September the negotiation program in Harvard Law School’s executive education series will present a seminar called Dealing With Difficult People and Difficult Situations.

Who says law schools don’t prepare their students for the “real world”?
Of course, most law schools don’t need to offer “workshops” for dealing with pricks. Students learn these lessons through practice — by dealing with professors.
Disclaimer: Please do not interpret this post as our taking sides in either Charney v. S&C or Shanettagate. Consider this provocative quote from the article (emphases added): “[S]ome scholars say, the problem is not the difficult people themselves. IT IS YOU.”
Furthermore, reasonable minds can differ over who is the “jerk” in a particular situation. The article mentions “[t]he explosive boss” as one example of a jerk, but it also cites “the Complainer, the Whiner and the Sniper” as jerkly archetypes. So the S&C partners might argue that Aaron Charney is a “jerk,” or Shanetta Cutlar might label Ty Clevenger as a “jerk.”
Help, I’m Surrounded by Jerks [New York Times]

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGA very interesting exchange appeared in some recent comments about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.
We’re bringing the exchange up to the main page, for the benefit of those of you who can’t keep up with all the comments. Here it is:

I wonder if ANY work is getting done over [at Sullivan & Cromwell]. I bet people are just sitting around and gossiping all day.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2007 04:33 PM

Of course no work is getting done. We’re too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled…(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings…

Posted by: None | January 19, 2007 04:44 PM

4:44: What are some of the conpiracy theories you have come up with thus far?

Posted by: Dr. Kravath | January 19, 2007 04:45 PM

Please say that these comments can be recreated for those of us whose free time allows for the constant refreshing of only one legal gossip blog.

Posted by: new anon | January 19, 2007 04:47 PM

Our response to all of this:

Peter Lattman WSJ Law Blog Wall Street Journal Peter Latman.jpg4:44 PM: We have an email into Peter Lattman [at right] about this. Also, please note that ATL has a general “no moderation” policy with respect to comments. So if the WSJ Law Blog posters would like to reproduce their comments here, they are welcome to do so.

(An exception to our “no moderation” policy: We pull comments that appear to be accidental duplicates — e.g., double- or triple-posted comments.)

Posted by: David Lat | January 19, 2007 05:25 PM

We will let you know if and when we hear back from Peter Lattman.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Aaron Charney headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL.JPGAs we have stated previously, we intend to cover Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell like nobody’s business. We are not yet the #1 Google result for either aaron charney or charney v sullivan & cromwell, but we’re getting there.
It’s not terribly exciting, but here’s a brief note we received this afternoon from plaintiff Aaron Charney:

David,

Wanted to drop you a quick line thanking you for your ongoing coverage of my case. As I have stated all along, it is very important for attention to be given to this issue in order to foster change at S&C and more generally, and you have provided (and I hope will continue to provide) a tremendous forum for this cause.

If you want to discuss my matter, feel free to [call me].

Regards,

Aaron

Also, here’s another article on the lawsuit, from the New York Blade. It contains no new information about the case. But its appearance in the Blade does show that the case is receiving attention within the gay community.
Lawsuit Filed Against Law Firm Claiming Harassment, Discrimination [New York Blade]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Alexandra Korry Alexandra D Korry Alex Korry.jpgWe have a lunch to attend, so we’ll be gone for a little while. We’ve arranged for items to be posted in our absence, though, so please visit early and often.
While we’re gone, please feel free to share your thoughts on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, in the comments. We’ve been finding your comments highly informative and entertaining.
We especially welcome comments about Sullivan & Cromwell partner Alexandra Korry (at right). If the allegations about her from the Charney Complaint and ATL reader comments are even halfway true, we have the HUGEST CRUSH…
Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Later!
Alexandra D. Korry [Sullivan & Cromwell]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGLots of great reader comments concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. It’s getting hard to keep track of them.
If we get the chance, we may put together a “Best of” or “Top 10″ list for comments (as one of you suggested). This comment thread, appended to yesterday’s post about Aaron Charney’s interview on Canadian television, is especially interesting.
If you’re having a slow Friday, and if you haven’t already done so, we urge you to read the entire Complaint (PDF). We have no background in this area of law, so we won’t opine on the merits of Charney’s case. But his complaint seems fairly well-written, at least by pro se standards, and it’s full of fun gossip about S&C.
As a legal matter, as well as a matter of professional development — i.e., not burning every last one of your bridges, including those to your mentors and allies — it may have been unwise for Charney to lard his complaint with so much (arguably gratuitous) scuttlebutt. But as connoisseurs of Biglaw gossip, we’re grateful to him for dishing all that dirt about S&C.
For now, we’d like to share with you this amusing message from a reader, about specific allegations from the Charney Complaint:

Not being included in the Mentor Program. That HAD to be the breaking point. See paragraphs 60-61 (“Pagnani’s Mentor List did not include Plaintiff”).

Oh the horror. If there is one bright ray of sunshine in a young associate’s life, it’s the opportunity to take summers out for a $200 lunch once a week. How can any third year get out of bed knowing that they’ll be eating an $6 sandwich from Au Bon Pain, while everyone else is out at a mentor-mentee lunch?

At first we thought this message was facetious. But now we’re not so sure. If being forced to dine at ABP while your colleagues go to Nobu isn’t actionable, we don’t know what is.
P.S. Yes, we know: Chief Justice John Roberts eats at Au Bon Pain (and also gets take-out from Cosi). But he makes less than a fourth-year associate — and can’t stop bitching about it.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

We’ve been running the same still photo of Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, over and over again. You’re probably sick and tired of seeing his mug (appealing though it may be).
But now we have more to offer you. If you’d like to see and hear an animated Aaron Charney, to make your own judgment of his credibility, you’re in luck.
Aaron Charney has given an on-air interview to Report on Business Television, Canada’s leading business news television channel. The segment was titled “Aaron and Goliath.” Check it out here (around the 44th minute of the broadcast).
It’s quite interesting. And, of course, they go into the subject of anti-Canadian animus.
We’d like to hear your thoughts on the video. Please place them in the comments. Thanks.

Aaron Charney ROB TV screencap.jpg

SqueezePlay [RobTV.com (video)]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

After we posted the press release recognizing the Sullivan & Cromwell and Kaye Scholer lawyers who worked on the recent Onex / Kodak Health Group transaction, one of you pointed out:

Respectfully, you missed the lede in the Kodak post. Read Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint (PDF) re: Kodak’s complaints regarding fees and overstaffing. Then look at the attorney list for Kodak and compare the slim list for the other side.

S&C put out its major league press, earning how much in fees??? I’ll leave it to you to parse the Exhibit C memo. Have at it!

Point well-taken. The announcement mentions just five Kaye Scholer lawyers, versus almost thirty S&C lawyers, who worked on the deal.
In fairness to Sullivan, the Kaye Scholer part of the announcement names only partners, not associates (presumably omitted from the list). But it is true that a staggering number of S&C lawyers worked on this transaction — some 28 lawyers, about a third of them partners, from six different countries. Basically, everybody and their cousin-in-law worked on this deal.
Not surprisingly, Kodak squealed about the bill. For your reference, here’s Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint:
Kodak Sullivan Cromwell email.jpg
Partner Stephen Kotran notes that griping about the bill is “par for the course” for Kodak.
But Kodak might be wondering: Is overstaffing “par for the course” for Sullivan & Cromwell?
(Okay, that last line was gratuitously snarky. For all we know, Kodak was just delighted with the quality and cost of S&C’s legal representation. Heck, maybe we’ll drop Kodak a line and see if they have any comment. We’ll keep you posted.)
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Aaron Charney headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL.JPGOur eyes glaze over when we see, in The American Lawyer or over at NYLawyer.com, those laundry lists of lawyers who worked on various transactions. Usually we don’t bother reading them.
But several of you drew our attention to this interesting announcement:

Sullivan, Kaye Scholer Advise Purchase Of Kodak Medical Imaging Business [NYLawyer.com]

In case you haven’t registered for NYLawyer.com — yeah, registering for free sites is a bitch — we reprint the announcement, in full, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C’s Shout Out to Charney”

Barry Ostrager Barry R Ostrager Simpson Thacher Bartlett STB.jpgWe now interrupt your regularly scheduled programming of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell to bring you some embarrassing news about another ultra-prestigious New York law firm: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
From Decision of the Day:

From the “it can happen to anyone” file, the Second Circuit dismisses a cross-appeal by Travelers Insurance Company because its law firm filed the notice of appeal one day late. After the losing party in the district court filed a notice of appeal, Travelers had 14 days to file its notice of cross-appeal. However, the firm calculated the 14 days from the date it received the notice, not from the date the notice was actually filed. The district court denied Traveler’s motion to extend the deadline by one day, explaining that this was a case of “garden variety attorney inattention” and not excusable neglect. The Second Circuit affirms (PDF).

The law firm that made this rookie mistake was one of the whitest of the white shoes, the venerable Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. The partners on the brief have stunning resumes, and the fifth-year associate has done plenty of litigating, given that he is admitted to practice in three jurisdictions and thirteen courts. So, yes, it can happen to anyone. (And in case you’re wondering, no, STB did not reject me.)

Decision of the Day is too nice to name the STB lawyers on the brief, but we have no such qualms. These are matters of public record. The attorneys who screwed up here are partner Barry R. Ostrager, partner Andrew T. Frankel, and associate Robert J. Pfister.
Barry Ostrager, by the way, is routinely named as one of the country’s top business litigators and trial lawyers. See, e.g., here, here, and here. He’s not particularly nice; as one litigator diplomatically observed, Ostrager “doesn’t suffer from the need to be loved.” But he has been very successful for his clients.
Given Ostrager’s stellar reputation, this latest defeat is particularly embarrassing. It’s one thing when you litigate a case as best you can, then lose because the law just isn’t on your side. It’s another thing when a federal trial judge finds you guilty of “garden variety attorney inattention,” and then an appeals court affirms, holding that your “attorney inadvertence” — a charitable phrasing — does not constitute “excusable neglect.” Great litigators, after all, are supposed to be careful, attentive, and detail-oriented.
But this is not Barry Ostrager’s only lapse. His failure to pay attention to detail extends to the men’s room — as we have had the misfortune of observing, firsthand.
Read all about it, if you dare — don’t say we didn’t warn you — after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Barry Ostrager of Simpson Thacher: Bad at Deadlines, Bathroom Etiquette”

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGWe aim to be “fair and balanced” in our coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. We have printed several statements from Aaron Charney in these pages. We have a standing offer out to S&C to print any statements they’d like to make as well (although they have only availed themselves of it once).
We are happy, however, to print pro-S&C emails from unofficial sources too. The email below was forwarded to us by a tipster who received it through a listserv for gay lawyers.
The message struck us as thoughtful and well-written. Here it is (redactions ours, to keep our source anonymous — our default attribution policy):

I saw [another listserv member's] email regarding Sullivan and Cromwell, and as I summered there [recently], I wanted to give you all my perspective. I had a good experience there, and I think it would be a shame if this incident affected the firm’s ability to recruit LGBT lawyers.

For the record, I am not [currently affiliated] with the firm….

I thought S&C was one of the most gay-friendly firms I interviewed with. I had a long talk with a couple gay partners (one of whom headed the litigation department), and I was struck by how the acceptance of gay lawyers was not just superficial. Openly gay lawyers populate all levels of the firm, from the management committee to heads of departments to first-year associates.

I went on a couple gay summer events, including a huge summer dinner that the gay partners throw. I brought [my partner] to summer events. I never felt like I had to be “discreet” about my sexual orientation at the firm.

I never knew Aaron, but I’m not sure how connected with the other S&C gays he is. Let’s be honest though: the fact that some New York M&A attorneys might have engaged in mildly boorish behavior is not exactly newsworthy.

S&C, like all large NY firms, has its faults, but homophobia isn’t one of them. I encourage every member of [the listserv] who wants to do the big NY firm thing to apply there.

We thank the tipster who forwarded this to us, as well as the author of the original message (whom we contacted, and who gave us permission to post his message, with redactions).
Please continue to engage in robust dialogue in the comments. But if you have what might be described as a “special perspective” on the case — e.g., you know Aaron Charney personally, or you’re a gay lawyer at S&C — please feel free to email us. Thanks.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Page 326 of 3491...322323324325326327328329330...349