Madam Justice Lori Douglas, the Canadian judge featured in pornographic pictures with an S&M flavor, has been something of a whipping girl over the past two years. She has been publicly humiliated, with her name dragged through the mud — even though, when you stop and think about it, she was the real victim.
Now Her Honor will get her day in court — or at least before the Canadian Judicial Council, which is conducting an inquiry into her conduct. But so will her nemesis, Alex Chapman, the man with a checkered past who opened up this whole mess in the first place….
For most of the time that she has been in the public spotlight, coming up on two years, Madam Justice Lori Douglas — the Canadian judge featured in pornographic pictures showing her engaging in bondage, playing with sex toys, and administering oral sex — has maintained a steady silence. Her husband (and the man who got her into this mess in the first place), lawyer Jack King, has spoken out, publicly apologizing for his misconduct. But Justice Douglas has been quiet.
Until now. Justice Douglas has come forward to share her side of the story — and to refute the allegations made against her in a Canadian Judicial Council inquiry that will determine if she will remain on the bench.
What does Justice Douglas have to say in her defense?
On these pages, we cover a fair number of lawsuits relating to female anatomy. Suits about women who say they were fired from their jobs for their stunning beauty (or, depending on your level of cynicism, their other intimidating feminine assets). But we less frequently write about lawsuits stemming from the male anatomy.
Today, we’re making up for lost time. This afternoon we have two stories about men who allegedly have trouble with properly managing their personal packages, thus causing varying degrees of trauma to themselves and people around them.
Are these suits sexy? NO. Are they crazy? Uh, yup. Salacious? Check. And no matter how one discusses these suits, it will sound like an awkward conversation with Tobias Fünke.
Why did Dewey agree to pay an associate from the class of 2006 more than $400K in severance? According to the Times, Saffitz received this severance agreement after she “complained over how she was treated by a former Dewey partner and told the firm’s management.” According to the Journal, she filed “a complaint regarding sexual discrimination by a Dewey partner who is no longer with the firm.”
Inquiring minds want to know: Who was the partner in question? And what did he allegedly say or do to Emily Saffitz?
Finding out such details is difficult. Settlements in cases of alleged sex discrimination or sexual harassment often contain non-disclosure or non-disparagement provisions that prevent the parties from speaking about what took place.
So we didn’t expect we would ever find out which former Dewey partner triggered complaints from Emily Saffitz. Until, well, he emailed us….
Yesterday afternoon, Dewey’s lawyers appeared in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The firm’s lead lawyer, Albert Togut, introduced himself as follows: “I can finally confirm the worst-kept secret of the year. I am counsel for Dewey & LeBoeuf.” He’s going to be a very busy man over the weeks and months ahead.
Let’s find out what happened at the hearing, and also take a closer look at one of Dewey’s most intriguing unsecured creditors: a (rather attractive) litigatrix, a former Dewey associate now at another firm, who is owed more than $400,000 in “severance” by D&L….
You may remember that back in the summer of 2010, an attractive and curvaceous woman named Debrahlee Lorenzana sued Citibank for wrongful termination. Apparently Lorenzana was “too hot” — so hot, in fact, that she allegedly distracted other bankers from doing their jobs, resulting in her firing.
Just two years later, another woman claims that she was fired for similar reasons — her employers at a lingerie business allegedly told her she was “too hot” and that her breasts were “too large.” Now, we know what you must be thinking: how can one be “too hot,” or have breasts “too large” to work for a lingerie company?
Everything’s possible in New York, but we know that TTIWWOP — “This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.” We’ve got a few, plus a video….
In the movie “Wedding Crashers,” Vince Vaughn’s character introduced the term “motorboating” to a global audience, through a tirade about being forced to grope an older woman’s breasts. In case you’re not familiar with the term (and we don’t know why you wouldn’t be), you can find its definition at the Urban Dictionary.
Now, you may be asking, what’s wrong with a good old-fashioned motorboating? You’d assume that the breastacular event would be enjoyable for both parties.
But apparently the fun stops when a man allegedly endures a rodeo of unwanted sexual advances from his female boss that crescendos in two occasions of forced motorboating. So before you can say, “You motorboatin’ son of a b*tch!,” let’s see what’s going on deep in the heart of Texas.
Let’s take a break from the sad and serious story of Dewey & LeBoeuf’sdownfall and turn (or return) our attention to another kind of going down. In more salacious, racy fare, we bring you updates about female legal eagles who have flown high in these pages before — and now might find themselves crashing earthward.
The first is Reema N. Bajaj, a beautiful young Illinois lawyer who has been accused — perhaps unfairly — of prostitution charges. The second is Madam Justice A. Lori Douglas, a Canadian judge whose nude photos made their way to the internets.
So what’s the latest news about Bajaj and Douglas? Here’s a hint: What does each share in common with Bill Clinton?
Say, for example, you work on staff at a Biglaw firm that hosts a monthly office happy hour. The festivities allegedly culminate in people getting so drunk that they try to strangle you on your way to the bathroom.
That would be bad news. Because Mad Men may be a cool show, but these days, it’s not a world in which many people would want to live.
Would such events ever transpire at a leading law firm in Washington, D.C.? According to a new lawsuit, at least one angry former employee would say so…
I think it’d be funny if each country could apply for a special cultural diplomatic immunity. Like, one law your diplomats could break anywhere because the practice is culturally accepted in your country. Sure, by funny I mean “horribly racist,” but it really would be entertaining to see what each country picked. America would probably pick the “name your price” ability: our diplomats would be able to buy anybody off, anywhere, without being charged with “bribery.” China would get the “putting lead in stuff” immunity.
I can’t imagine what the French would ask for.
Thought experiments aside, the diplomatic immunity that former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn wanted was laughed out of a New York court today. Like I said, it’s funny to see what people ask for…
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 six years. You can reach them by email: [email protected].
Since late last year, things have been booming in Hong Kong / China in cap markets, especially Hong Kong IPOs. M&A deal flow has recently been getting a bit stronger as well. Although one can’t predict such things with any certainty, all signs are pointing to a banner entire 2014 for the top end US corporate and cap markets practices in Hong Kong / China. This is not really new news, as its been the feeling most in the market have had for a few months now and things continue to look good.
The head of our Asia practice, Evan Jowers, has been in Hong Kong for about 10 days a month (with trips every other month to both Shanghai and Bejing) for the past 7 months, and spending most of his time there meeting with senior US hiring partners at just about all the major US and UK firms there, as well as prospective candidates at all associate levels and partner levels, and when in the US, Evan works Asia hours and is regularly on the phone with such persons, as our the other members of our Asia team. Our Yuliya Vinokurova is in Hong Kong every other month and Robert is there about 5 times a year as well. While we have a solid Asia team of recruiters, Evan Jowers will spend at least some time with all of our candidates for Asia position. We have had long standing relationships, and good friendships in some cases, with hiring partners and other senior US partners in Asia for 8 years now.
The evolution of relationships between the genders continues. Currently, in law firms, there is an interesting conundrum; balancing the desire for a gender-blind workplace where “the best lawyer gets the work and advances” and the reality of navigating the complicated maze created by the fact that, in general, men and women do possess differences in their work styles. These variations impact who they work with, how they work, how they build professional connections and how organizations ultimately leverage, reward and recognize the talents of all.
Henry Ford sat on his workbench and sighed. A year earlier, he had personally built 13,000 Model Ts with his own hands. Fashioning lugnuts and tie rods by hand, Ford was loath to ask for help. Sure, there were things about the car that he didn’t quite understand. This explains the lack of reliable navigation systems in the Model T. But Ford persevered because he knew that unless he did everything, he could not reliably call these cars his own.
“Unless my own personal toil is responsible for it, it may as well be called a Hyundai,” Ford remarked at the time.
The preceding may sound unfamiliar because it is categorically untrue. And also monumentally stupid. Henry Ford didn’t build all those cars by hand. He had help and plenty of it. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, Henry Ford opened up the most technologically advanced assembly line the world had ever seen. Built on the premise that work can be chopped up into digestible pieces and completed by many men better than one, the line ushered in an age of unparalleled productivity.
Today, an attorney refers business because he can’t do everything the client asks of him.
There are three reasons why this is way dumber than a made-up Henry Ford story…