Yesterday Aaron Charney, the former Sullivan & Cromwell associate now suing his former employer for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation, filed an amended complaint against the firm. To download copies of Charney's latest filings, follow these handy instructions.

Some background about the new complaint, from an article by Anthony Lin in this morning's New York Law Journal:

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried dismissed Charney's original pro se complaint without prejudice earlier this month, ruling that some of the ex-associate's allegations and attachments were irrelevant and potentially violative of disciplinary rules. The judge gave Charney leave to replead his case.

Though Charney, now represented by four lawyers, excised the material cited by the judge, he added new allegations concerning events that took place after his initial complaint was filed, in particular a Jan. 31, 2007, settlement meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

Remember our post from last week, hinting at the possibility that false affidavits were created in the Aaron Charney / Sullivan & Cromwell litigation? Well, a few more details -- or allegations, at least -- are drifting in.

Check out this order by Justice Bernard Fried:

Second page, after the jump.

In an interesting article in today's Gay City News, Professor Arthur Leonard discusses the whole "Nazi-gate" controversy surrounding Sullivan & Cromwell partner Gandolfo "Vince" DiBlasi (at right).

Much of the article will be familiar to those who have been following the case closely. But here's some good background (which previously surfaced in the comments, but merits highlighting here):

Explaining why he was so frightened that he destroyed [his] computer, Aaron Charney testified: "And when we got to the Penn Club, the content of that meeting and the threats that Mr. DiBlasi made invoking the fact that the firm had represented the Nazis and how -- that nobody cared, and that people wrote a book about them representing the Nazis and no one cared."...

Several books have discussed allegations that during the 1930s Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys were involved in representing businesses with interests in Nazi Germany, most prominently a 1994 book by John Loftus and Mark Aarons titled The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.

Over at his blog, Professor Leonard offers more free-form reflections. Check out his breathlessly posed questions, which nicely capture the soap opera that the Charney case has become:

Why would anybody in the position of Gandolfo DiBlasi make any reference to S&C's past representation of "the Nazis" - knowing that somebody in the room was taking notes - even if he believed that the meeting was covered by a promise of confidentiality? Will DiBlasi deny under oath that he said any such thing?... Will [Gera] Grinberg, whose job and residence in the US may be at stake, deny that DiBlasi said it? Will [Edward] Gallion, who was in the pay of S&C but owed his fiduciary duty to his client Grinberg and not to the source of his compensation, as these duties are parsed out under the ethical rules? And what motive could Charney have for making this up? Who is writing the script for this thriller? And will Sir Ian play "Gandolfo" in the docudrama.....???

Excellent queries. We look forward to finding out the answers in the weeks ahead.

Charney: S&C Waved Its Nazi Past [Gay City News]
The Latest Charney Sensation [Leonard Link]

In a post from last week, we solicited your tips about two major players in the Charney v. S&C saga:

(1) litigation partner Gandolfo "Vince" DiBlasi, who allegedly intimidated Aaron Charney at a settlement meeting; and

(2) M&A partner Stephen Kotran, cited by Aaron Charney as an ally of his at the firm.

The post generated lots of comments, plus a few reader emails. We collect the highlights after the jump.

One of you posted this in the comments, and we subsequently verified it with sources at the firm. Late last week, this announcement was made internally at Sullivan & Cromwell:

I am pleased to announce that Vince DiBlasi, Andrew Gerlach, Tracy Richelle High, Jessica Klein, Keith Pagnani, Melissa Sawyer, Karen Seymour, and Fred Rich, as Chair, have agreed to serve on a new working group focusing on the recruiting process and the associate experience. The group has been charged with looking at all aspects of our recruiting strategy and process, and, in conjunction with the Associate Development Committee, our approach to associate career development and every aspect of the associate experience at the firm.

We have no higher priority than continuing to attract the most promising law students, and then to provide them, and all our current lawyers, with training, professional opportunities and an overall experience that is second to none. I would be grateful if each of you would share your own ideas and suggestions with any member of this group.

Rodgin Cohen

Some of you will accuse us of seeing everything through an Aaron Charney lens, but we'll pose the question anyway: Could this be a response to the public relations fallout from Charney v. S&C?

As for the composition of the working group, we have to ask: What's up with the half measures, Rodge? If you want to put S&C's best, jack-booted foot forward, why not throw Krautheimer and Korry on it too?

If you have any suggestions for the S&C committee, please offer them in the comments. We recommend weekly Leni Riefenstahl screenings to improve associate morale.

(The timing couldn't be better -- there's a Riefenstahl renaissance afoot.)

We've reviewed the excerpts from the Aaron Charney deposition that were attached to Charney's court filings from yesterday. We've culled out some highlights, so you can review them for yourself and reach your own conclusions.

(We realize, of course, that this is just Aaron Charney's side of the story. But at this point, in the absence of deposition testimony from Gera Grinberg or any S&C lawyers, it's all we've got. Obviously you should read it with the caveat that Charney isn't exactly a disinterested witness.)

For starters, here's Charney's testimony about the alleged "we've represented the Nazis" comment by Sullivan & Cromwell partner Gandolfo "Vince" DiBlasi:

Additional juicy excerpts, after the jump.

We're glad to see that our last post on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell -- concerning Gandolfo "Vince" DiBlasi's alleged boast that S&C "defended the Nazis," and would "crush [Charney] like a bug" -- gave rise to such a comment clusterf**k lively reader discussion.

This raises the question (which has already surfaced in the comments):

Is there any truth to this allegation?

We have emailed Vince DiBlasi (near right, glasses) with a request for comment. But we doubt he'll get back to us.

So to figure out whether he actually said these things, we hereby request some character evidence -- from you, our readers. If you have any firsthand information about DiBlasi -- what he's like as a person, as a boss, as an adversary -- please email us (subject line: "Vince DiBlasi").

Now, we've written a fair amount about alleged "villains" at S&C -- in addition to DiBlasi, M&A partners Alexandra Korry and Eric Krautheimer. But now we'd like to hear about a "good guy." A tipster wrote to us:

The S&C partner you should be soliciting info on is not Krautheimer or Korry but STEVE KOTRAN. Stephen Kotran [far right, no glasses] is by far the most fascinating character in this story. After all, Charney's initial complaint makes clear that at every phase Kotran bucked the system (refused to do what his partners wanted him to do) in order to do what he felt was right.

This is storybook shit! How many partners at top-tier law firms are made of such stuff? I, for one, would love to know more about the man who appears to be the lone hero of this story.

And so would we. If you have inside info about Mr. Kotran, please email us (subject line: Stephen Kotran).

We thank you in advance for your thoughts on Messrs. DiBlasi and Kotran -- and we look forward to reading them.

Stephen M. Kotran bio [Sullivan & Cromwell]
Gandolfo V. DiBlasi bio [Sullivan & Cromwell]

Perhaps you're sick of reading about the aborted settlement talks between Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell. Presumably you've already read our extensive coverage of the March 15 court hearing, at which the settlement talks took center stage, as well as the reports of Lavi Soloway (who effectively functioned as ATL's New York correspondent for the hearing).

But if your appetite for all things Charney-licious continues unabated, then be sure to read this excellent article, by Anna Schneider-Mayerson of the New York Observer. It doesn't contain much new material, but Schneider-Mayerson does a superb job of explaining a rather confusing series of events at the hearing, in clear yet engaging prose. Enjoy!

Update: We agree with the various commenters about the juiciness of this tidbit (and apologize for apparently missing it until now):

Michael Kennedy, an attorney for Mr. Charney, described an alleged “rant” by [S&C partner Gandolfo "Vince"] DiBlasi.

“That rant said, ‘Sullivan & Cromwell is invincible.’ That rant says, ‘We defended the Nazis, and nobody can do anything or cared. We’ll crush you like a bug,’” Mr. Kennedy said, quoting his client’s recollections at a Feb. 22 hearing in the New York State Supreme Court. “Those aren’t settlement negotiations; those are threats.”

First Thing, Kill All the Evidence [New York Observer]

As we've mentioned before, Lavi Soloway has posted some great coverage of yesterday's hearing in Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. He offers detailed discussion of the arguments before Justice Bernard Fried, his impressions of them, and original photos.

You can access Soloway's two posts here and here. They're well worth your time.

Some excerpts, with commentary from us, appear after the jump.

Thank you, Sullivan & Cromwell, for not settling this case and putting the mess behind you. The ongoing saga of Aaron Charney v. S&C is providing lawyers across the country with hours of entertainment.

Each week brings some exciting new development or salacious revelation. And yesterday's hearing in New York Supreme Court, before Justice Bernard Fried, was no exception to this rule.

Discussion and links, after the jump.

What's more thoroughly trashed: Aaron Charney's Biglaw career, or his computer hard drive? You be the judge.

Patricia Hurtado and Lindsay Fortado, of Bloomberg News, have filed an excellent report about yesterday's court proceedings in the litigation between Aaron Charney and his erstwhile employer, Sullivan & Cromwell. Here's an excerpt:

A former Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer who destroyed his home computer's hard drive after being sued by the law firm must be questioned under oath about how and when he did it, a New York judge said.

The judge, Bernard Fried, ruled today after being told Aaron Charney, the lawyer, had computer professionals wipe the computer's memory clean, took it home, smashed it with a hammer and threw it away. Charney's attorney Michael Kennedy described the destruction of the computer's hard drive to the judge.

Thanks to our time in the discovery salt mines, we know that computer forensic experts can pull off all sorts of miracles when it comes to data recovery. But in our non-expert opinion, it sounds like the Charney hard drive is history.

In this case, it's not a matter of recovering a purportedly "deleted" file that still resides somewhere within the computer's memory. Thanks to the hammer smashing and trashing, what's needed here is a physical miracle, of the water-into-wine variety.

Another juicy tidbit from the Bloomberg News report: Charney was told by S&C, during settlement discussions, that they would "crush him like a bug" -- delicious!!!

But bug-crushing is a tad cliched. Couldn't the S&C lawyers have been more creative? Maybe they could have told Charney, "We will shred you into little bits, like a redlined draft merger agreement that has been superseded by a later version."

More from Hurtado and Fortado -- hey, we like the ring of that -- after the jump.

Update (12:05 PM): Please note that we've appended a few additions and corrections to this post since it was originally published.