Kerrie Campbell
Pretty much every single update to this story — the tale of a Biglaw partner suing in a purported $100 million class action over gender discrimination and unequal pay — starts the same: OMG, you will not believe what just happened!
That trend has continued in the latest round of insults traded in the case of Kerrie Campbell versus Chadbourne & Parke. If you’ll recall, last week the Biglaw firm announced it was going to hold a partnership vote to officially oust Campbell from their ranks. Campbell’s lawyer, David Sanford, had his own strongly worded response to the press, and has followed that up with a motion seeking corrective action and related relief. Sanford calls the firm’s move to vote Campbell out of the tribe one designed to “demean and humiliate” her as well as “convey a direct and undisguised threat to the Firm’s other female partners” not to join the litigation:
Meet Your New Team: Intuit QuickBooks Unveils The Power Of AI Agents For Business Growth
The future of business is here, and it's powered by QuickBooks.
Now, Chadbourne has administered the coup de grace with a vicious one-two blow. First, Chadbourne unilaterally cut off Ms. Campbell’s salary payments with no warning or explanation, leaving her without any income. Second, Chadbourne has publicly announced that it is scheduling a vote – now set for Wednesday, April 19, 2017 – to formally expel Ms. Campbell from the Firm.
In a press statement that the Firm distributed to reporters on April 5, 2017, Chadbourne makes no bones about the reasons for Ms. Campbell’s expulsion. Chadbourne explicitly connects the scheduled vote to this lawsuit and states that the Firm’s decision is “the inevitable result of the choices Ms. Campbell has made” in pursuing this case. It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, to publicly announce an expulsion vote before it has occurred; and, here, Chadbourne contacted the press about its plans for a vote even before notifying the Firm’s partners. It is readily inferred that the purpose and effect of this communication was not only to demean and humiliate Ms. Campbell, but also to convey a direct and undisguised threat to the Firm’s other female partners: anyone who joins this action places her career and reputation in jeopardy.
The filing goes on to request the following:
1. A reasonable restriction on Defendants’ and their agents’ communications with potential class and collective action members about the Plaintiffs and this litigation.
2. Corrective notice informing female partners that they cannot be retaliated against for joining or participating in this lawsuit, that the Court is fully equipped to protect them from any actual or threatened retaliation, and that any such retaliation will not be tolerated.
3. An order suspending the expulsion vote for Ms. Campbell and otherwise prohibiting Defendants from taking or threatening retaliatory measures against Plaintiffs and potential opt-ins. If Defendants are permitted to carry through on their publicly-announced threats of retaliation, it will likely cement the chilling effect of these threats and ensure that no other female partner will pursue her claims against Chadbourne.
4. Equitable tolling on the claims of potential opt-ins.
It remains to be seen how the judge (and Chadbourne) will react to this latest development, but the latest update in the Days Of Our Biglaw Lives saga is keeping us on the edge of our chair.
Law Department Professionals: How Does Your Patent Management Stack Up?
Help us benchmark your organization with this survey and have a chance to win a $250 gift card.
UPDATE: A representative of the firm reached out to us with a comment on the latest development:
Over one year ago — long before she ever filed any lawsuit — Kerrie Campbell was advised for good and sufficient reasons to transfer her practice from Chadbourne & Parke LLP. She did not do so. It is time for the Firm to take the next step and hold a meeting of the partners to decide upon ending Ms. Campbell’s participation in the partnership. This event was entirely foreseeable and Ms. Campbell was well aware for some time that this step would be forthcoming. Plaintiffs’ effort to seek to stop an orderly expulsion proceeding, which conforms to the partnership agreement that Ms. Campbell herself signed, would have its own “chilling effect” on the right of partnerships to manage their own businesses and enforce their own contracts. Plaintiffs’ complaints about public communications regarding this matter can only be described as chutzpah. The Firm has not sought publicity on this suit. It has not initiated a single interview whereas both Ms. Campbell and her counsel have conducted numerous, ad hoc and ad hominem attack interviews in an obvious public relations offensive intended to deter the Firm from protecting itself from a partner like Ms. Campbell. This motion itself is another grandstanding measure by Ms. Campbell and her counsel, clearly written more for the press coverage they hope to receive than out of any real notion that the remedies they seek are justifiable or appropriate.
You can read the full motion on the next page.
Earlier: Biglaw Firm Hit With $100 Million Class Action Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Chadbourne Swings Back Over Gender Bias Suit
These Biglaw Partners Are Super Pissed Someone Filed A Class Action Lawsuit On Their Behalf
Chadbourne Class Action Lawsuit Gets Juicy AF — Lawyer Fires Back Against Criticism
Biglaw Pay Discrimination Case Adds A New Plaintiff
There’s Now (Allegedly) Videotape In The Latest Biglaw Lawsuit Twist
Biglaw Firm Claims Partners Are Not Employees
3rd Former Partner Files Suit Against Chadbourne Over Unequal Pay
Biglaw Merger Means The End Of ‘Chadbourne & Parke’
Biglaw Firm Will Vote To Oust Partner Suing Them For Gender Discrimination
Kathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).