* Lawyerly Lairs: Retired Law Professor Edition. Amidst all the bellyaching by state workers demanding rich, defined-benefit pensions (which are basically extinct in the private sector), isn’t it nice to read about two old people who can pay for their own retirements — and a $3.3 million condo? [New York Times]
* Wondering why Rep. Christopher Lee stepped down so quickly? Here’s a possible answer. [Gawker]
Warning: The penis-to-vagina ratio in this week’s column is quite high. If you’re already on the mailing list for Rick Santorum 2012, you may want to avert your eyes — or go make fun of sissy-boy John Kerry for helping plan his daughter’s wedding.
Our fabulous finalist couples:
The celebrated case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was fun while it lasted. As we mentioned last night, the fun is over: the parties have reached a settlement.
But the case was good to us — and we intend to give it a proper sendoff, with several post-mortem posts. If you have any info or gossip about the case that you’d be willing to share, please email us.
This post is the obligatory linkwrap. We’ve collected and read various reactions to the settlement news, so you don’t have to.
Links and excerpts, after the jump.
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’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.”
The indefatigable Lavi Soloway has posted an excellent summary of the juiciest parts of the amended complaint just filed by Aaron Charney.
The best stuff is in the lede (all caps in the original; emphases added):
THE AMENDED COMPLAINT INCLUDES ALLEGATION THAT ON JANUARY 31, FORMER S&C ASSOCIATE, EDWARD GALLION, WHO HAD BEEN HIRED TO REPRESENT ASSOCIATE GERA GRINBERG, REVEALED TO CHARNEY AND GRINBERG THAT HE, GALLION, IS “A HOMOSEXUAL.”
GALLION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DISCLOSED THIS FACT IN GALLION’S APARTMENT (???) AS GRINBERG, CHARNEY AND GALLION AWAITED THE ARRIVAL OF GALLION’S PARTNER, STEVEN SPIELVOGEL, WHO WAS TO ACCOMPANY THEM TO A SCHEDULED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. ALLEGEDLY, GALLION ALSO TOLD THEM THAT HE HAD NOT MADE PARTNER AT S&C BECAUSE OF ANTI-GAY DISCRIMINATION AND THAT WHILE HE WAS AN ASSOCIATE THERE HE HAD BEEN NICKNAMED “THE FAGGOT” BY A PARTNER AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Many of you have expressed interest in the latest developments in the continuing litigation between gay lawyer Aaron Charney and his former employer, Sullivan & Cromwell. It has been quite some time since our last post about this case.
Unfortunately, as far as we know, nothing is going on right now. We have a Google Alert set to notify us of all things Charneylicious, and it has been silent lately. This morning we checked the docket, as well as the blogs of two top Charney watchers, Professor Art Leonard and Lavi Soloway. Nada, zilch, zip.
To tide you over, here is one little rumor (unconfirmed, so take it with a grain of salt). It’s so minor that we hesitate to share it. But, for what it’s worth, we hear that Gera Grinberg — the S&C associate who had a relationship with Aaron Charney that partner Alexandra Korry allegedly described as “unnatural” — is back in the office.
(We tried to confirm this by emailing Grinberg. We didn’t receive a response; but we also didn’t receive an “Out of Office” notice, either.)
Observers of this case will recall that Gera Grinberg was placed on a leave of indefinite length by S&C, shortly after the lawsuit was filed. He was on this delightful vacation paid leave for a period of at least several weeks. But now we hear that he’s back at 125 Broad Street, working away like a good corporate lawyer.
Boy that must be awkward — for both Grinberg and S&C. After all, Grinberg is at the center of some salacious allegations about possible misconduct in this case.
If you have any information about new developments in Charney v. S&C, please drop us a line. Thanks. Update: In response to this comment: Yes, we called Gera Grinberg too. The call went straight to voice-mail (which makes us wonder whether maybe he still is on leave, since no secretary was covering his phone). We left a message.
We’re having one of those days — computer problems, email troubles, etc. We never should have returned from vacation.
It’s a bad time for us to be so distracted, because there’s breaking news in the Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell litigation — twodecisions from Justice Bernard Fried. A tipster sums them up:
FYI – Two written decisions were posted to the NY State Supreme Court Reporter website today. One is Charney v. S&C; the other is S&C v. Charney.
The first dismisses Charney’s suit, but with leave to replead. The second grants S&C a preliminary injunction, dismisses the first cause of action by S&C against Charney (breach of fiduciary duty), and directs Charney to answer the remaining causes of action.
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 seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.