That’s the most shocking revelation in an interesting New York Times profile of H. Rodgin Cohen, the nation’s top banking M&A lawyer and chairman of the venerable Sullivan & Cromwell. From the NYT:

After [Cohen and his wife Barbara] had paid their [restaurant] check, they went to fetch the car, and Mr. Cohen, a Boston fan since his days at Harvard Law, glanced down at his BlackBerry to check on the Red Sox. He drives a Subaru, a humble ride for a man who earned millions last year arranging shotgun weddings for the busted firms of Wall Street, and standing next to Barbara in the darkness, Rodge Cohen, a titan of the banking bar, struggled with his automated key, initially unable to — woop woop woop — release the lock.

Unlocking car doors by remote control — where’s a good associate when you need one?

Now, in re Subarus, we have nothing against them; they are fine cars. Some of our best friends drive Subarus. One of our co-clerks — a member of the Elect, no less — drives a Subaru Forester. The judge for whom we clerked — Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain (9th Cir.), a top feeder judge — used to drive a purple Subaru (affectionately nicknamed “Grimace” by his clerks).

But as we know from the judicial pay controversy, federal judges don’t get compensated like partners at Sullivan & Cromwell. And Cohen is no ordinary S&C partner — he’s the chairman of the firm and its top rainmaker, generating tens of millions in business every year. A Subaru is shockingly downmarket for him. We realize that true wealth doesn’t have to advertise itself, and six-figure cars are for the nouveau riche, but this still seems a tad extreme.

More to the point, why is Rodge Cohen even driving himself? Wouldn’t it be more efficient for him to have a chauffeur-driven Maybach — john quinn, holla — so he can spend every waking minute on the phone, negotiating billion-dollar bank mergers? Isn’t it a waste of the brilliant Cohen’s brain cells to have him paying attention to yield signs when he could instead be thinking about yield curves?

More tidbits from the Rodge Cohen profile, along with commentary, after the jump.

What role do lawyers have in advising their clients on business matters? Some might say: None.

“The client decides on the business objective, and the lawyer helps the client reach that objective, as long as it’s legal,” this line of thinking goes. “And why would you want lawyers giving business advice anyway? They have no business training — and judging from how large law firms have fared in the Great Recession, they don’t seem to be particularly good at business either.”

On the other hand, one thing we commonly hear from the in-house lawyers we speak with is that they do give a combination of legal and business advice (not surprising, given that they have one client, which they want to see prosper). And some top law firm lawyers also get involved in the business side of things; they’re dealmakers in their own right, not just the folks who “paper up” the deals dreamed up by investment bankers. E.g, H. Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell, who played a major role in various bank M&A deals last fall.

Fried Frank partner Jonathan Mechanic (pictured) — chair of that firm’s high-powered real estate group, with a top ranking from Chambers and Partners — is arguably the real estate world’s answer to Rodge Cohen. In the New York Observer, Dana Rubinstein began an August 2008 interview with Mechanic by citing a study declaring him to be “the best-connected and most powerful real estate lawyer in the world.”

But at least one ATL reader holds the opinion — a minority opinion, it should be noted — that Jon Mechanic’s track record isn’t so stellar.

The bill of particulars against Jon Mechanic and Fried Frank, after the jump.

[Ed. note: This post is by MARIN, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Marin’s avatar (at right).]

Legions of ATL readers waited with bated breath for the results of our wildly popular prior post. Without further ado, we present to you the offspring of our superstar attorney pairings:

[Ed. note: This post is by MARIN, one of the finalists in ATL Idol, the “reality blogging” competition that will determine ATL’s next editor. It is marked with Marin’s avatar (at right).]

From ergonomic wrist supports to dual computer monitors, law firms wring every ounce of productivity from the attorneys they haven’t axed (yet). But while firms close branch offices and fire scores of lawyers, we submit that the answer to the current economic slump isn’t merging firms - it’s merging people. Everybody knows that two lawyers are better than one. It’s time for firms to get both and pay half; time for attorney mating.

No more legions of staff attorneys or filibuster roll-calls. Say goodbye to team meetings that resemble the Last Supper. Through attorney mating, firms can combine, say, the skills of master litigators with those of corporate powerhouses in order to produce uberlawyers with the efficiency of ten Aeron chairs. Using genetic samples from parent attorneys and the latest in Photoshop technology, we’ll give you a sneak peak at the offspring of some of the most sought-after combinations.

Read more, after the jump.

After a quiet period, in which we were reduced to wishing Gera Grinberg a happy birthday, there’s some actual news about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. From Keeping Up With Jonas:

Judge Fried issued his decision in response to S&C’s partial motion to dismiss. Though both sides landed blows, it seems that S&C can claim itself the victor of this battle. The Court dismissed Charney’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and Conspiracy causes of action, albeit without prejudice. However, at least as it stands now, it appears that Charney may have difficulty reviving these claims. But it was not a complete victory for S&C. The Court declined to strike most of the paragraphs from the Complaint that S&C had requested.

More from Jonas here, and Justice Bernard Fried’s order here (PDF). Jonas titled his post “The Empire Strikes Back.” But why did he use a photo of Sharon Nelles instead of H. Rodgin Cohen (who is closer in age and appearance to Emperor Palpatine)?

Professor Arthur Leonard offers the detailed, thorough analysis that we’ve come to expect from him. Here’s an excerpt:

So, what does all this mean? I’m not entirely sure….

I had thought that these additional claims were separate and distinct from the NYC HRL [Human Rights Law] claims, as relating to the activities of S&C and Gallion in reaction to the lawsuit rather than to S&C’s treatment of Charney as an employee. That is, the HRL claims related to what happened before Charney filed his original lawsuit. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was addressed to the tactics that S&C then used after the lawsuit was filed to try to pressure Charney to back down, and the conspiracy claim was specifically aimed at the enlistment of attorney Gallion to add to the pressure and sidetrack Grinberg from allying himself with Charney

Does Fried’s action in dismissing these additional legal claims but refusing to strike almost all the factual allegation paragraphs of the complaint that specifically relate to them mean that he believes the events that came after the first complaint are now part of the overall case under the city Human Rights Law? If so, then Charney has lost nothing by this dismissal order, and the judge has at least implicitly ratified the idea that S&C’s response to his complaint becomes part of the retaliation case, at the very least.

Professor Leonard’s full post appears here. We agree with his assessment that “this continues to be a complicated case.” When are we going to get more sexy and salacious allegations?

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell [New York Supreme Court (PDF)]
Court rejects bid to expand Charney case [Leonard Link (Art Leonard)]
Charney Sullivan & Cromwell Decision: The Empire Strikes Back [Keeping Up With Jonas]

Recently H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, was interviewed by Chrystia Freeland, the U.S. managing editor for the Financial Times.

The full transcript interview appears here. Of course, the subject of Aaron Charney v. S&C came up:

FT: You’re being accused quite publicly, your firm is, of sexual discrimination against a gay associate, what’s your response and what has it been like? It’s been a very public case.

RC: It has been public and that makes it unusual because I have had calls from various law firms saying there, but for the grace of God, go us because we were able to deal with it out of the limelight.

Wow — we’d love to hear the gory details. For every Charney v. S&C, there are probably five cases like it that get settled quietly, without fuss.

(Speaking of which, whatever happened to Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig?)

RC (continued): Our response, I think, is quite simple. We have made it a real mission to ensure that this is a welcoming and inclusive law firm. And in my view there is no way that we could be engaged in a policy of discrimination in the area of GLT with our record. We have probably more gay and lesbian partners than any firm, anywhere. We tried to make it a welcoming firm for everyone to be totally inclusive and I think if somebody ever sat down and talked to the partners who are here who are gay, lesbian or transgender or our staff or our associates, I think they would all agree that this is a fully inclusive and welcoming place.

FT: Do you actually have transgender partners?

RC: To my knowledge there is not a transgender partner but there is transgender staff.

We appreciate Cohen’s hedge: “To my knowledge.” Because a firm chairman should be hands on, but not TOO hands on.

Transcript: Rodgin Cohen [FT.com]

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.)

From the new March issue of The American Lawyer. Both are by the fabulous and fashionable Vivia Chen. Go Vivia!

1. “Antigay or Antihuman?” [American Lawyer]

Yes, this is an article about Sullivan & Cromwell. Money quote:

“We can’t fire everybody who might say something inappropriate, who does something foolish under pressure,” says [firm chairman H. Rodgin] Cohen, adding that partners and associates who step out of line receive counseling. “[But] I’m 100 percent convinced that this firm is no worse than others.”

Maybe; maybe not:

In the last two years, S&C has scored near the bottom in The American Lawyer’s midlevel associates survey. And according to an S&C memo leaked to The Wall Street Journal in January, the firm had a 31 percent attrition rate among its associates in 2005.

See also:

“Every word of that complaint rang true to me,” says one former lawyer. “They [M&A partners] are just vulgar.”

“I don’t think it’s discrimination; M&A is just a brutal group,” says the former lawyer. “I think this guy was treated badly and unprofessionally.” Sums up another former M&A associate: “S&C isn’t antigay, just antihuman.”

2. Rainbow Revolution [American Lawyer]

This article is adequately summed up by the subhed: “Despite the lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell, these are the best of times to be a gay lawyer.” Our favorite quote:

One reason that accurate data [about gay lawyers at large law firms] is hard to collect is that GLBT individuals can stay below the radar screen. “It’s not obvious; I don’t sing ‘YMCA’ when I walk into a room,” says Joseph Hall, 43, the only openly gay partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell. Unlike gender or race, revealing sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

This is a continuation of our prior post, Brokeback Lawfirm: The New York Magazine Piece (Part 1), which discussed the first half of Robert Kolker’s New York magazine article about Aaron Charney.

Our discussion picks up on page three (web pagination) of Kolker’s piece. At the top of that page is this fabulous graphic, entitled “Notes on a Scandal”:

It’s arguably a little derivative of an earlier New York Observer graphic (discussed here). But the textual elements are new, and some of the featured individuals are different.

The illustrations are amusing. They’re perhaps the most “pro-Charney” part of the whole article, since they’re so unflattering to the S&C lawyers, who are drawn to resemble animals. H. Rodgin Cohen looks like a frog, and Alexandra Korry looks like a chimp.

Our further thoughts on the article appear after the jump.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

We previously praised Anna Schneider-Mayerson’s great reporting. But we must also give props to the graphics team at the Observer, whose handiwork is shown above. Nice work, guys!

Random observation: David Braff and Eric Krautheimer look much younger in this photo montage than in their S&C headshots. Heck, Krautheimer looks halfway cute. But the expression on his face says, “I’m a nasty, sadistic SOB.”

Associate Gets Crushed Beneath White Shoe [New York Observer]

Rumor has it that Sullivan & Cromwell’s chairman, banking law god H. Rodgin Cohen, was “pretty angry” when he learned that the New York Times would be covering Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the anti-discrimination lawsuit filed against S&C by a gay former associate, Aaron Charney.

(The NYT story was pretty even-handed. But it was surprisingly long and detailed, which Cohen probably didn’t like. We discussed it back in this post.)

If Rodge Cohen doesn’t like MSM coverage of lurid litigation involving his firm, then he’s probably less than pleased by all the news coverage of Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney, S&C’s countersuit against its former M&A associate.

Today’s New York Law Journal has an article about the case. Most of it is familiar to ATL readers. What’s new is info about Charney’s legal team, which now includes the scrumptiously credentialed Laura Schnell: Dartmouth, Chicago Law, Jack Weinstein clerkship, Best Lawyers in America listing.

In addition, the New York Times’s widely read DealBook blog has a write-up of the suit. The DealBook post contains a shout-out to ATL. Thanks, NYT!

As some commenters have noted, one purpose of S&C’s countersuit was surely to get Aaron Charney to shut up. It appears to have succeeded, since Charney has been tight-lipped since last Thursday, when the suit was filed.

But the countersuit does mean that (1) S&C is “stooping to Charney’s level,” i.e., crossing swords with someone of lesser stature (no “Rose Garden” / “we will ignore you as if you were a gnat” strategy); and (2) opening itself up to more media coverage, to wit, coverage of its affirmative lawsuit.

We are coming up to New York on Thursday to watch the preliminary injunction hearing before Justice Bernard Fried of New York Supreme Court. And we don’t think we’ll be the only media (or quasi-media) types in attendance.

Bob Kolker, of New York Magazine, is writing a feature-length article about Charney; so we’d expect to see him there. Other top legal reporters we’ll be watching out for — we have no idea of whether they’re coming, though — include Peter Lattman and Nathan Koppel, of the Wall Street Journal; Anna Schneider-Mayerson, of the New York Observer; and Anthony Lin, of the New York Law Journal.

Update (4:35 PM): Prolific ATL commenter Lavi Soloway will be there.

If you’re at the hearing, feel free to come over and say hello. We look like this.

We also look forward to meeting the parties and their lawyers. We’ve emailed Aaron Charney to tell him that we’ll be there (although he hasn’t responded). And we’ve emailed Zach Fasman of Paul Hastings, who represents S&C, to put him on fashion-and-style notice:

I’m planning to attend the hearing on Thursday, so perhaps I’ll meet you then. Be sure to dress for success! I’ll definitely be writing about the sartorial choices of counsel at this red-carpet event.

Hope all is well!

Best,
David

Time to break out the Brioni, Zach. We better see visible hand-stitching on the lapels, bitch.

This is going to be great fun!!!

Update (4:20 PM): As noted by Lawzer, New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer also has a brief item on the S&C countersuit.

Law Firm Facing Gay-Bias Suit Fires Back [DealBook / New York Times]
Sullivan & Cromwell Sues Fired Associate [New York Law Journal]
Paper Trail Disturbed at Sullivan & Cromwell [Intelligencer / New York Magazine]
Taking Center Stage [Soloway]

We 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.

Update: 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)

We haven’t seen as many films this year as we usually do. But one of our favorites, either our #1 or #2 pick for the year, is The Queen (directed, and brilliantly so, by Stephen Frears).

Here’s a decent plot summary:

In late August 1997, just as Prime Minister Tony Blair was moving into 10 Downing Street, Princess Diana died in a Paris car wreck. England went into traumatized mourning deeper than anyone could have predicted, while the royal family — Diana’s estranged former inlaws — offered no public reaction at all.

As resentment toward the royal cold shoulder built into a monarchical crisis of public opinion, young Mr. Blair [attempts to intervene] with the Queen, [urging] the House of Windsor [to make] a public demonstration of something like humanity.

But Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) resists Blair’s call for a more public show of empathy. She is a deeply traditional woman, and as far as she’s concerned, Diana’s death is a “private matter” — since Diana, divorced from Prince Charles some time ago, was no longer a “royal” or “HRH” at the time of her death.

The Queen’s commitment to tradition makes her tone deaf on the public relations front. She does not know how to navigate the complex and challenging world of the modern mass media. The Queen fails to see the crisis in confidence that is looming — a crisis that threatens the institution of the monarchy, which she loves above all.

What we must now ask is:

Is H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Biglaw version of “The Queen”?

Our reflections on this question, after the jump.

Well before Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was ever filed, the venerable law firm was dealing with some serious issues. As aptly summarized by New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, “Sullivan & Cromwell lost about 30 percent of its associates in 2004 and 2005. It might take more than a raise to fix that.”

From a fascinating rather interesting Wall Street Journal article by Peter Lattman (which we meant to write about yesterday, before we got swamped by all the pay raise news):

Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers.

The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like “thank you” and “good work” to associates they supervise.

What else should partners do? “Return associates’ phone calls as quickly as you would a partner’s or client’s,” said one bullet. “Be sensitive to not canceling associates’ vacations,” said another.

Additional bullet-points made these helpful suggestions:

“Don’t tell gay associates that they like taking it up the ass (because they might be tops rather than bottoms).”

“Refrain from subjecting associates to profanity-laced tirades in which you tell them they should be fired.”

Guess Eric Krautheimer and Alexandra Korry missed that meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

It will take a while for Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell to pick up speed as a legal case. New York Supreme Court isn’t exactly a rocket docket. When we were in private practice, we worked on a New York Supreme Court case with a 1973 index number. That’s before we were born.

But on the public relations front, battle has been joined. Yesterday Sullivan & Cromwell sent us this statement, via S&C partner Theodore O. Rogers, Jr., in which the firm “categorically denie[d] Mr. Charney’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation.”

We contacted Aaron Charney, by email, to seek his response to the statement. What he wrote to us, plus a statement of his current employment status at the firm, after the jump.

As you learn on your first day of law school, there are two sides to pretty much every case (or rather, every interesting case, or any case worth including in a casebook).

It seems that Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell is no exception. In response to our email request for comment, we were contacted by S&C partner Theodore O. Rogers, Jr., a prominent and highly respected labor and employment litigator (pictured at right).

Mr. Rogers forwarded us a copy of this email, from the legendary H. Rodgin Cohen, Chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell (and a god of the banking M&A bar):

——-Original Message——-
From: Cohen, H. Rodgin
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:56 PM
To: *AllUsers.WorldWide
Subject:

Today an associate of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Aaron Charney, filed a complaint against the Firm, representing himself, alleging discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation. Mr. Charney chose to post his Complaint on the greedyassociates.com web site before serving the Firm.

The Firm categorically denies Mr. Charney’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation. Mr. Charney first raised assertions of this sort in May 2006 through a lawyer, and his assertions were followed by a multi-million dollar demand. The Firm promptly investigated his assertions at that time, and rejected Mr. Charney’s money demand. Mr. Charney chose to remain associated with the Firm thereafter.

Sullivan & Cromwell is widely recognized as welcoming to all persons without regard to sexual orientation. We are proud of our record of hiring and advancement of individuals irrespective of their sexual orientation, as well as of our lawyers’ representation of organizations and individuals who protect the rights of individuals to be free from sexual orientation discrimination.

Rodgin Cohen

Shortly after we received Cohen’s email, we received this interesting message from a reader (who is not at S&C):

“I gotta say, I was suspicious of the pro se thing (and posting the complaint on his website) before your interview. He’s right that any competent employment counsel is going to try to quietly settle it. As a gay m&a attorney in nyc, I’m glad he is drawing attention to their behaviour, but if I were in his place I’d likely have retained counsel, settled for two years’ salary and moved on.”

“Do you think they will pay him more now to make him go away? On the one hand, they can’t terminate him now because it would be de facto retaliation but on the other hand it makes it more difficult for him to prove damages because he is still working there and continuing to get ‘big deals.’”

Earlier: Prior coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Are you a gay law student or lawyer? Are you thinking about possibly working at the New York powerhouse law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell?

Before you apply to S&C, you might want to first check out this complaint, filed today in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court, despite the misleading name).

Allegations of discrimination against gays AND Canadians (there’s a difference); a headshot of the handsome plaintiff; and a link to the full complaint. All this and more awaits you, after the jump.

The latest word on the street (per Greedy NY): Sullivan & Cromwell has matched the market with respect to associate bonuses. We are investigating.

Update (10:54 AM): We’ve left messages with S&C’s spokesperson and with H. Rodgin Cohen, the firm chairman. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them.

Update (12:14 PM): Consider this CONFIRMED. More details, plus the boilerplate of the bonus memo(s), are available here.

S&C Matched [Infirmation / Greedy NY]