Biglaw

Proskauer Hits Back At Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

The Biglaw firm argues the plaintiff 'cherry-picked' the stats in the complaint.

By  
on

Proskauer Rose has no intention of taking a gender discrimination lawsuit lying down. Back in 2017, the firm was slapped with a $50 million gender discrimination lawsuit alleging “substantial gender disparities,” including being objectified by male partners and a substantial gender pay gap. (It was initially styled as a Jane Doe case, but in an amended complaint filed last month, Connie Bertram, head of the firm’s labor and employment practice in D.C., was revealed to be the partner behind the suit.)

But now the firm has come out swinging, saying the amended complaint misses the boat and “cherry-pick[s]” the stats it uses. As reported by Law.com:

Specifically, the firm wrote that Bertram’s originated revenues grew in 2014 and peaked in 2015 at about $9.2 million. But they then began to drop off, falling to $8.4 million in 2016 and to $4.15 million in 2017. The 2017 figure, Proskauer wrote, marks a 55 percent decline as compared to Bertram’s peak revenue origination in 2015. Despite the drop in 2016, Proskauer said it actually increased Bertram’s allocation of the firm’s profits, and despite an “enormous decline” in 2017, Bertram’s share of profits dropped by just 2 percent that year.

“Plaintiff’s claims disregard the allocation system to which she agreed, as she focuses on those metrics most favorable to her, ignores others that expose weaknesses in the profitability of her practice, and affords no recognition to non-metric factors critical to the allocation decisions,” Proskauer wrote in its answer. “Plaintiff also ignores the financial rewards that she obtained by joining Proskauer.”

Of course plaintiff’s attorney, David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp — the firm that’s making a name for themselves suing Biglaw firms over gender discrimination — had a great sound bite ready in response:

“Proskauer is excellent at spinning a tale,” he said. “We look forward to discovery in this case and to a jury’s evaluation of all the evidence.”

We’re looking forward to discovery too.

… But we might not get full discovery. The Biglaw firm argues that, as a partner, Bertram is a business owner and therefore not protected by the anti-discrimination laws she’s suing under. Bertram argues that the centralized leadership structure of the firm means that the majority of partners do not act as business owners. The judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson, has ordered limited discovery into this specific question.

Sponsored

headshotKathryn 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).

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , ,