In addition to handing down some big opinions, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a number of cases. As noted by SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, the Court denied certiorari in a significant antitrust case, as well as a pair of test cases raising constitutional issues in the immigration context.
But the most important cert denial was surely Aisha v. Madonna, No. 06-1389. A blurb about this battle of the mono-monikered musicians, from a reader:
We sure do love pro se litigants. Like the guy who filed this notice of appeal. Or the loon who filed this lawsuit against Arm & Hammer. And, of course, there’s Aaron Charney (although he now has counsel).
Today we introduce you to Michael Melnitzky, who served as the principal art conservator at Sotheby’s for almost three decades. From the NYT:
[W]hen his wife filed for divorce in 1994, Mr. Melnitzky became something else: a litigator. A prolific one. And although he has no law degree and only himself as a client, he has never been busier.
Through a series of self-fashioned lawsuits and appeals, issues that might have been settled with his divorce have gone on for 13 years, 3 years longer than his marriage.
He has sued virtually everyone involved: one of his former lawyers, his wife’s lawyer, three banks, five judges and a psychiatrist appointed by the court to evaluate his mental health. In unrelated cases, he has sued a neighbor, a thrift shop, the city and his former employer. And he has almost always lost.
Unlike so many pro se litigants, Melnitzky is neither incarcerated nor impecunious. But in terms of his psychology, he fits the pro se profile:
At a recent hearing, an opposing lawyer called him a “serial litigator” who was turning the legal system into a “hobby” at the expense of the people he sued.
Mr. Melnitzky takes exception to such characterizations, as he does to the mention of obsession.
“It’s not an obsession; it’s a cause,” he said. “Would you call the fight against Nazis an obsession?”
Melnitzky is a Holocaust survivor. But despite that fact, we respectfully question whether it’s appropriate to compare the worldwide struggle against Fascism and genocide to litigation over a watch collection (even a very nice one — it includes timepieces by Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin). The Marriage Lasted 10 Years. The Lawsuits? 13 Years, and Counting. [New York Times]
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.
We’ll get back to the subject of payraises for law firm associates in a minute. For now, here’s a quick update on the other story that Biglaw is abuzz about: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the case filed against S&C by associate Aaron Charney, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.
We’re monitoring coverage of this lawsuit through a news feed. Here are links to, and excerpts from, the latest stories:
1. Maple Grief [TheLawyer.com]
[O]ne charge [in the Charney Complaint] strikes [us] as particularly heinous. And that is that partners at the firm said the prevailing attitude internally was that “S&C considers all Canadians to be irrelevant”.
Given that the firm’s M&A lawyers spent most of last year defending Canadian nickel producer Inco on a £9.3bn hostile bid, we would be keen to hear Sullivan’s arguments played out in a tribunal.
If you haven’t already done so, you can still vote in our poll asking you whether you support Aaron Charney or Sullivan & Cromwell in Charney v. S&C. Click here to vote in that poll (or to view the results if you’ve already voted).
After we posted Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: The $15 Million Question, a number of you started to debate in the comments:
“5-10 mil seems like a fair sum to ask for in this matter.”
“I’d let partners say much more degrading things to me for $5M. I’d also allow myself to be left out of the summer mentoring program. ABP’s sandwiches are not bad at all. Esp. that chicken mozzarella one.”
“Does anyone have statistics on the average employment discrimination award in NYC? Include not just the cases that won millions, but also the cases we never hear about.”
“$15 million? Sheesh. I’d take it up the butt for $15 million, much less tolerate a few comments about bending over.”
We realize that what we’re about to do is completely unscientific and unreliable. We don’t know all the facts of the case. Nor do we have any data concerning the average size of employment discrimination awards in New York City (as one of you expressed an interest in seeing). So we don’t have any solid basis for comparisons.
But please, humor us; we’re curious. For what it’s worth — and we admit it may not be worth much — please take our latest poll:
In March 2004, police arrested Muhammad Dye on Central Avenue. They found him carrying an electric scale, two cellular phones, five empty sandwich bags with cocaine residue and $1,063 in cash.
Dye was charged with drug possession and possession of criminal tools, but after a weeklong trial in November 2005, a jury cleared him of the charges. Dye even argued successfully that all the items seized should be returned to him, right down to the sandwich bags.
This guy sounds AWESOME. Here’s more from the article:
Common Pleas Judge Lillian Greene declined to discuss the case because Dye has three more cases pending before her. Courtroom observers, though, said Dye is surprisingly charming. While he sometimes mangles his words, he gets his point across to the jury.
Considering that Dye prevailed in getting his cocaine-dusted Ziplocs returned to him, he’s got to be good. Update: From someone who has witnessed Muhammad Dye in action:
He’s not great, I’ll be honest, but he’s not bad. His cross of a codefendant who flipped was decent — he got his point across. Having clerked in a federal district court, I’ve seen lots worse from retained defense attorneys.
Lots 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?
Move over, Fire Island. See ya later, Provincetown. Rehoboth Beach, you’re all washed up.
The gay destination of choice for summer 2007? This may come as a surprise to you, but it’s 125 Broad Street, New York, New York — home of the estimable law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (plus the ACLU’s LGBT Rights Project).
From Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:
I am informed by numerous sources that David Braff (at right), on behalf of certain gay S&C partners, circulated a memorandum stating that such partners are pleased with the work environment at S&C.
What exactly makes Sullivan such a fabulous workplace for gays? Is it the subsidized gym? The proximity to S&C client Goldman Sachs, home to countless cute banker boys with seven-figure incomes? The complimentary cosmos served in the firm cafeteria?
If you have a copy of this memo, please send it our way, by email.
We’re looking forward to seeing it. But Charney seems less than impressed:
Braff’s memo directly misses the point. My complaint concerns the discrimination and retaliation perpetrated by S&C against me. S&C clearly has no defense against the allegations enumerated in my Complaint and instead seeks to muddy the waters by trying to divert people’s attention away from the issue at hand. S&C’s campaign of diversion is the latest example of S&C’s unwilling[ness] to enforce the firm office manual’s anti-discrimination policy and confirms why I was left with no choice but to pursue this legal matter.
Charney’s willingness to speak freely about the case — or to try it in the court of public opinion, as his critics claim — may explain why he seems to be winning the PR war, at least at the current time. In our reader poll, which is still ongoing, about two-thirds of respondents support him over S&C.
(But that is down somewhat from the 75 percent support that Charney enjoyed earlier in the afternoon. Could an anti-Aaron backlash be developing?) Update: One of you has posted what appears to be the gay partners’ memo in the comments. Thanks! Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
As the Times of London noted, reactions of Above the Law commenters to Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell have been all over the map, “var[ying] from encouragement to contempt.” Some of you have hailed Charney as a hero, while others have attacked him vociferously (using terms we won’t repeat here).
But commenters aren’t necessarily representative of the larger readership. So we’d like to obtain a more accurate sampling of public opinion about this high-profile lawsuit. (If you need to read up on the case first, click here to access our past coverage.) Disclaimers: We are not social scientists. This poll is highly unscientific. The question is vague. Few of the facts about the case are known, and many are in dispute. Discovery has not yet commenced (and won’t start for a while).
But for what it’s worth, and based on what you currently know (or think you know), please take our reader poll:
OmniVere’s delivery of end-to-end technology & data consulting to position the company as a true differentiator in the global legal technology and compliance space.
CHICAGO, IL, September 29, 2014 – OmniVere today announced the creation of the company’s technology & data consulting arm and the addition of several industry-renown experts, including the former co-chairs of Berkeley Research Group’s (BRG’s) Technology Services practice, Liam Ferguson, Rich Finkelman and Courtney Fletcher.
This new consulting practice will provide and expand existing OmniVere eDiscovery consulting services to corporations, law firms and government agencies with a special focus on compliance, information governance and eDiscovery. This addition of this top talent now positions OmniVere as a true industry leader in the technology and data consulting space offering best-in-class end-to-end services.
Ferguson, Finkelman & Fletcher are nationally recognized experts and seasoned veterans in the areas of overall technology, electronic discovery, and structured data. At OmniVere, the team will be focused on all global consulting activities with respect to legal compliance, complex data analytics, business intelligence design and analysis, and electronic discovery service offerings.
The Trust Women conference is an influential gathering that brings together global corporations, lawyers and pioneers in the field of women’s rights. Unlike many other events, Trust Women delegates take action and forge tangible commitments to empower women to know and defend their rights.
This year, the Trust Women conference will take place 18-19 November in London. From women’s economic empowerment to slavery in the supply chain and child labour, this year’s agenda is strong and powerful. Speakers include Professor Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Laureate and founder of the Grameen Bank; Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women; Mary Ellen Iskenderian, President and CEO of Women’s World Banking and many other influential leaders. Find out more about Trust Women here.