This is the third post in our post-hearing coverage of Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney. Our prior posts are available here and here.
In this post, we collect our favorite quotations from our morning at 60 Centre Street, New York Supreme Court. Here they are: Before the hearing:
“Uh-oh, it’s the big guy!”
– Daniel Alterman of Alterman & Boop (Charney’s counsel), greeting Charles Stillman, counsel to Sullivan & Cromwell (and an eminence grise of the New York bar)
“You — you — you f***ed up!”
– Dan Alterman, greeting your undersigned blogger
Presumably he didn’t like this post very much. But he said the remark in good-natured fashion.
A few seconds later, after he had walked past us, he turned around and said (jokingly and within the earshot of about half a dozen people, so we feel okay in reporting it):
“And that was on background. Deep background!”
He also defended his fashion choices, pointing out the monogramming on his sleeve:
“My tie is clean. My wife dressed me this morning. My initials are on my shirt!”
Quotes from during and after the hearing, after the jump.
We need to grab some lunch. The good thing is that, since we got most of the icky substantive discussion out of the way in our last post, future posts will be mostly gossip and fashion commentary.
(Coming attractions: our bathroom encounters with David Braff and Zach Fasman; meditations upon Charles Stillman’s shoes and Laura Schnell’s hair; and some colorful quotes growled to us by Dan Alterman.)
In the meantime, you can find additional discussion of this morning’s hearing in two other places:
1. The S&C v. Charney Drama Moves to the Courtroom [WSJ Law Blog]
2. Sullivan & Cromwell v Aaron Charney, Act One [Soloway]
We previously linked to Lavi Soloway’s post, but if you checked it out earlier, you should return and refresh. Now he has PICTURES!!!
We got enough material from this morning’s hearing in Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney to fill several posts. Eventually we’ll do something for more organized (and fashion-focused).
For now, in no particular order, here are some highlights. We will update this list until we feel this post is “complete” (and then we’ll open a new thread).
We’re publishing this post now, and updating it constantly, to get you info as quickly as possible. Refresh your browser for the latest.
1. In addition to Zachary Fasman of Paul Hastings, Sullivan & Cromwell is now represented by Charles Stillman — a veteran litigator described by the New York Times as “known for representing clients with intricate legal difficulties.” S&C would seem to fit the bill.
Stillman took the lead in speaking for S&C at this morning’s hearing. Zach Fasman spoke only a handful of times. S&C litigation head David Braff, although seated at counsel table, was completely silent (and sans feather boa).
2. Plaintiff Aaron Charney was nowhere to be found at today’s hearing. Darn! We wanted to see him in the flesh. But his absence is understandable — some awkward moments would have arisen had he been around to be questioned (or, if not questioned, at least stared at during the many moments of factual ambiguity).
3. One of the juiciest details, as nicely summarized by Lavi Soloway:
Last Wednesday January 31 there was a secret settlement meeting at which Charney was offered an undisclosed sum in return for which he promised, among other things, to destroy the hard drive on his personal, home computer. The destruction of that hard drive moved to the center of the debate. Aaron Charney has been ordered to submit an affidavit to the court regarding the hard drive and the status of documents that were allegedly in his possession.
But no settlement was reached (as one could tell from the fact that a hearing took place today). And now Charney — who, at the time of the secret settlement meeting, was still pro se — is represented, once again, by counsel.
3. On the issue of the hard drive, Daniel Alterman, on behalf of Charney, represented to the court that the hard drive of his client’s personal computer had been “destroyed.” Charney has been ordered to provide greater information to the court about this (as noted above).
4. It seems, reading between the lines, that Justice Charles Ramos — who had the case initially — did grant a TRO to S&C last week. But he didn’t give them everything they wanted, “scratching out” various aspects of their request.
As far as we could tell, the upshot of the TRO was for Charney to not divulge any secrets or client confidences of S&C. This explains his sudden shyness towards press inquiries. Justice Ramos punted a bunch of other issues raised in the TRO, such as custody of documents, to Justice Fried.
5. Justice Bernard Fried is taking over both the S&C case against Charney and Charney’s original anti-discrimination action against S&C. Both actions will be handled by Justice Fried going forward.
6. Briefing schedule on the OSC: (a) Charney’s opposition to S&C’s Order to Show Cause (i.e., the preliminary injunction motion) is due on March 1 (and Charney will cross-move for some relief of his own on that date); (b) S&C’s response to the cross-motion is due two weeks later, on March 15; (c) Charney’s reply on the cross-motion is due one week later, on March 22; and (d) the next hearing on the Order to Show Cause will be held on March 27, at 11 AM, before Justice Fried.
7. Schedule for the pleadings: S&C’s Answer to Charney’s original Complaint — or, more likely, its motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 — is due next week (apparently Tuesday, but there was some dispute over this).
8. Other procedural rulings: (a) discovery cutoff is February 5, 2008; (b) Note of Issue (placing the case on the trial calendar) set for February 12, 2008.
9. Rulings about S&C original documents: (a) various original S&C documents that Charney submitted to the Court, which S&C wants back, will be returned to S&C; (b) S&C will copy them and provide copies to the Court; and (c) next week — on Valentine’s Day, as noted by the Court — Charney must submit an affidavit or affirmation concerning S&C documents.
10. Rulings about the hard drive on Aaron Charney’s personal computer: (a) by the end of the day today, Charney must submit an affidavit or affirmation to the Court describing what happened to the “destroyed” hard drive; (b) if the hard drive has been merely erased, rather than physically destroyed, it must be produced to Judge Fried tomorrow; (c) if it still exists, a forensic computer expert will examine it, as requested by S&C.
11. Finally, Justice Fried entered a general preservation order, requiring all parties to preserve all documents relevant to these two cases (including attorney-client privileged documents).
Okay, that’s it for this post. Further commentary will appear in a new thread.
P.S. Comment wherever you like — this thread, the earlier thread, future threads. Commenting here at ATL has always been anarchic (which is why we love it so).
We have returned from the preliminary injunction hearing in Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney, which ended about an hour ago. We’re back online and in the process of working on a write-up.
There were a bunch of other reporters and bloggers at the hearing. We will add links to their coverage as they become available.
Thus far, the only other blogger or reporter who has posted on the hearing is Lavi Soloway. You can access his coverage here.
We will have something more detailed up shortly, so check back soon. Alas, it will only be text. The paparazzi-style photographs that we took of the lawyers will have to wait until tomorrow, because we forgot some cables at home.
In the meantime, a request for all of you: We’d like a fun name for this legal controversy. We are tired of titling our posts “Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney” or “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.”
Please place your suggestions in the comments. Thanks! Sullivan & Cromwell v Aaron Charney, Act One [Soloway]
A few more announcements have floated in, including ones from Blank Rome and Winston & Strawn. More details, plus a memo (in the case of Blank Rome), after the jump.
(These were the announcements that were into us and confirmed by the time we left for New York this morning. If you submitted confirmation of an announcement after 5 AM today, we’ll include it in our next round-up of pay raise news. Thanks.)
In about an hour, we’re leaving D.C. for New York. We’re bound for Justice Bernard Fried’s courtroom at 60 Centre Street, New York Supreme Court, to attend this morning’s hearing in Sullivan & Cromwell v. Charney. It’s where all the cool kids will be today. We are terribly excited!
Because of our coverage of the hearing, we’ll be offline for much of the morning (and perhaps part of the afternoon, depending on our lunch plans). But with the help of our friends over at DealBreaker, content that we’ve written up in advance will be posted here at ATL while we’re gone.
So please do stop by. Thanks!
* Music without DRM is like Esperanto, a worthwhile dream that had its moments, but never gained enough momentum to carry it through globalization. So isn’t I-Tunes, like English, close enough? [CNET News]
* I applaud StopSylviaBrowne.com’s creator for exercising his First Amendment rights, but part of me hopes he is forced to shut down so he can attempt something approximating a life. [Overlawyered]
* If you can’t spank kids anymore, how else do you discipline them? [Houston Chronicle]
* He found what worked, and stuck with it. Next time, he should try something less creative, like rush-hour in public transportation. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
We’re not sure we “get” this story. We agree, in part, with this comment:
[The Northwestern Law School controversy] sounds very boring to me.
The SBA president offends the Latinos Students association, people ask him to resign, he resigns. End of story.
Where’s the “scandal”? Who cares….
Our only observation, which the WSJ Law Blog post hints at, is the sheer irony of all this. The SBA president got in trouble for not inviting minority student group leaders, qua minority student group leaders, to a breakfast with Chief Justice John Roberts (and for some remarks he made after the fact).
Yes, THAT Chief Justice Roberts. The jurist who wrote, in last year’s big Texas redistricting case: “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
It is a sordid business, this divvying up of breakfast tickets by race.
But we seem to be in the minority. Several of you have asked us to write something about this dispute. And over at the WSJ Law Blog, there’s a comments clusterf**k going on.
So here’s an open thread. Enjoy!
P.S. We have to step away for a bit. But if we get inspired, maybe we’ll update this post a bit later with some actual substance. Law School Group Leader Resigns Amid Controversy [Daily Northwestern] Breakfast of Controversy [WSJ Law Blog]
A Kirkland & Ellis memo and a table were posted in the comments recently. We have verified them with sources at the firm; they’re the real deal. Accordingly, we have reprinted them after the jump.
Also, Paul Hastings — which previously announced pay raises for a bunch of its offices — has now announced what it intends to do in Atlanta. It’s raising associate salaries by $15,000, which means that first-years will earn $130,000. More details here. Paul Hastings raises associate salaries [Fulton County Daily Report]
I am sick and tired of all of you jelly-backed spineless weasels who write in with your “anonymous” monikers. Even you cowards who used to work for Shanetta should be man or woman enough to step up to the plate and identify yourselves instead of hiding behind the anonymous tags. How gutless!
If you carefully check the records, you will find that real substantive civil rights work is going forth in the Special Litigation Section. I would say that this is quite an accomplishment considering the current administration and its horrible record on civil rights issues.
No one talks about all the in-house sniping and back-stabbing that went on when she took the job. Plenty of mud-slinging and back-biting by would-be saboteurs galore. The hope was that she would go away and guess what – she’s still standing….
[D]on’t tell me that some of the attacks were not racially motivated. Check yourselves on that. Anyway, you idiots need to get a life and leave this woman alone.
As noted, this comment was signed by “Thailour Preston.”
Now we don’t seek to unmask our commenters. We respect their anonymity; it allows them to speak freely, which is great. We’re big believers in the First Amendment around here.
But anonymity does allow people to play pranks or assume personas. For example, colorful commenter “Leona” — who posed as a super-religious, anti-gay Christian woman — owned up to being a joke (in real life, a gay guy living in Cambridge, MA). Similarly, some of you have wondered whether “Loyola 2L” is a fictional identity.
So you never know for certain who’s posting what around here. But one of you did email us to point out an interesting coincidence:
Here is a bio (PDF) for Bishop Brian Garner. Someone has already noted the close relationship between Brian Garner and SYC, one of his congregants.
Look at the name of Brian’s wife: Robin Thailour Preston. Sound familiar?
If commenter Thailour Preston is in fact Robin Thailour Preston, the wife of Shanetta Cutlar’s minister, then she may be the only SYC defender who has identified herself by her real name. Maybe the only person in the comments besides you and Ty who has used a real name?
Earlier today, we published salary data for Wilson Sonsini. We quoted a poster who was disappointed that the raise was retroactive only to February 1st. We then received this clarification from a source at the firm:
Our raise was made retroactive to February 1 rather than January 1 because we have a February 1 fiscal year start. Compensation matters are always handled as of February 1.
In addition, bonuses were 15 percent higher this year because partner profits were up 15 percent. Staff bonuses were also 15 percent higher.
We are very busy at WSGR these days — cranking on all cylinders!
We also (finally) received confirmed information about Chadbourne & Parke. We reprint it after the jump.
Watch to find out what some of our subscribers received in their May box!
The proper hair styling product might just be the only thing standing between you and your dream job. And the best way to find what works for you is to try the best stuff on the market. Join Birchbox Man for $20 a month and you’ll get customized shipments of the best grooming and lifestyle gear on the market every month—everything from haircare and shaving supplies to style accessories and tech gadgets.
As the leading discovery commerce platform, Birchbox is redefining the retail process by offering consumers a unique and personalized way to discover, learn about, and shop the best grooming and lifestyle products out there. It’s a full 360-degree process: try, learn, buy. Once you sign up and fill out your profile, head over to Birchbox Man’s online magazine to find article and video tutorials on how to get the most out your monthly box products. Pick up full-size versions of anything you like in the Birchbox Shop and earn points for every purchase.
We currently have a number of active openings for associate roles at US and UK firms in HK / China, Singapore and two new in-house openings. As always, please feel free to reach out to us at email@example.com in order to get details of current openings in Asia, as well as to discuss the Asia markets in general and what we expect for openings later this year. Our Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney will be in Beijing the week of March 25 and Evan Jowers will be in Hong Kong the week of April 1, if you would like to meet them in person.
The US associate openings we have in law firms are in the usual areas of M&A, cap markets, FCPA / white collar litigation, finance, and project finance. The most urgent of our top tier (top 15 US or magic circle) law firm openings in Asia (among many other firm openings that we have in Asia) are as follows:
• 2nd to 5th year mandarin fluent M&A associates needed in Beijing and Hong Kong at several firms;
• Korean fluent 2nd to 4th year cap markets associate needed in Hong Kong;
• 2nd to 5th year Japanese fluent M&A associates needed in Tokyo;
• 4th to 6th year mandarin fluent cap markets associate needed in Hong Kong;
• 2nd to 4th year M&A / cap markets mix associate needed in Singapore.
The last time I flapped my wings your way, I tried to make at least enough noise about your mobile phone to make you more than a little bit uncomfortable. I hope I did. If enough of us become anxious enough about the known and unknown unknowns and knowns in our mobile phones, then we can start making wise decisions about how to manage that information and its resultant investigations.
Today, I’d like to put a finer point on the last installment’s topic by asking a question that seemed to catch most attendees off-guard at a conference panel that I moderated last week: is there discoverable personal information in a mobile app? Our panelists’ answer was a uniform “yes” with one stating that, if he had to choose only one type of data that he could discover from a mobile phone, he’d choose app data. Why? Because there’s simply so much of it and because almost all of it is objective – not just user-created like an email – but machine-tracked like GPS, usage duration, log in and log out times, browsed web addresses, browsed actual addresses. Also, most of us seem to have the idea that data doesn’t actually “stick” to our mobile devices the way it “sticks” to our hard drives. Maybe there’s a disconnect based on the fact that our phones are mobile so we assume the data is mobile to?
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!