Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Wherein Jack Gets Bitchslapped By His Own Organization
Over at their website, LeGal has posted an interesting statement (gavel bang: Soloway) about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. LeGal, you may recall, is the gay rights group whose vice-president, John Scheich, spoke out publicly in defense of S&C (as discussed here and here).
The statement, issued by LeGal's Board of Directors, reads as a whale of a bitchslap stinging rebuke of Jack Scheich. It's unintentionally amusing, in a smirk-inducing, Schadenfreude-ish sort of way.
We reprint (1) the LeGal Board's statement, and (2) a personal email that Scheich sent to Charney -- yeah, seriously!!! -- after the jump.
Here is the official statement of the LeGal Board of Directors on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:
As a law association of the LGBT community, our organization has followed news of the recent discrimination lawsuit filed against the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell by Aaron Brett Charney. Our knowledge of the case is of course limited to what is communicated in the media - both online and in print - and in public court filings As a result, none of us are capable of determining, at this stage, what actually transpired.We do know, however, that Mr. Charney's allegations of discrimination are quite serious. Given the gravity of the allegations and the early stage of legal proceedings, we sincerely regret that an officer of our organization has been quoted as essentially prejudging the merits of the lawsuit and the veracity of Mr. Charney, and that the officer also made subsequent comments. That was wrong - plain and simple. Since we believe the initial comments were wrong, we also believe any subsequent attempt to justify the initial comments were also wrong.
As lawyers, we are especially mindful of the dangers of prematurely judging evidence and of trying a case in the press. If Mr. Charney has suffered discrimination because of his sexual orientation (or for any other reason), he is entitled to not only his day in court but also the full support of the LGBT community and others who care about basic civil rights. We are deeply sorry that an officer of our organization, which aims in part to eliminate discrimination and to encourage LGBT individuals to choose law as a career, made public comments dismissive of Mr. Charney's claims. The views expressed by that officer do not represent the views of our Board, nor, we suspect, the views of our members. This statement is being released within 24 hours of our learning of the comments.
While it is true that Sullivan & Cromwell, as well as many other law firms, have been supporters of our organization, that fact does not bear on the crucial question of what actually transpired between Mr. Charney and his colleagues and superiors at the firm. The courtroom is the proper forum for such facts to be uncovered.
To all those who rightfully found the comments at issue troubling or even dangerous, we offer again our apologies.
And here's an email that Jack Scheich himself wrote to Aaron Charney:
From: Jack Scheich
To: Aaron Charney
Subject: Charney vs. S&C
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:45:32 ESTDear Mr. Charney,
As you proceed through your legal career and as the press covers your law suit, and as you give interviews, especially live interviews, you will learn first hand that you are not always quoted 100% correctly in the print media, and often a statement made is taken out of context or misunderstood. Such is the case with ABC's reporting on my interview.
LeGaL , as a Bar Association, will soon be releasing a WRITTEN press release with a clarification of the interview and with an official policy and position statement so as not to confuse you, S&C or any other interested gay attorney.
Jack Scheich
LeGaL
We don't mean to discount the significance or the sincerity of Jack Scheich's email to Aaron Charney. But excuse us for rolling our eyes, just a wee bit, at Scheich's suggestion that he was misquoted.
To refresh your recollection, here is his statement, as quoted by ABC News:
"Sullivan Cromwell is far from prejudiced in any way," says John Scheich, the first vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Law Association of New York [LeGal], adding that the firm often buys a table at his group's annual fundraising dinner dance. "I don't know Aaron Charney or the details of his case, but if I had to line up on one side or the other, I would have to line up with David H. Braff [an openly gay partner at the firm] and Sullivan Cromwell."
Pray tell, Mr. Scheich: How were you misquoted? Would you care to share with us the more complete version of your remarks?
We are big believers in the power of a good spin doctor. But not even the best publicist in the business -- Howard Rubinstein? Pat Kingsley? -- can spin dog crap into gold.
LeGal [official website]
Breaking News: LeGal Disavows Prior Statements re Aaron Charney vs Sullivan & Cromwell [Soloway]
Earlier: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: That Time of the Month for LeGal?
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Wherein Aaron Bitchslaps Jack
(26) Comments
Scheich is completely incompetent. LeGal should fire him ASAP. At least he didn't refer to Charney as Andrew, though.
This is WORSE than what Jack wrote. At least he was honest about LeGAL's POV. These guys are playing both sides of the fence, pretending to support Charney while rejecting his request for legal assistance.
Two-faced hypocricy. At least Jack had the decency to be sincere.
So it's OK to destroy Jack Scheich's life for a few harmless words, but Charney should be held on a pedestal.
We need to get our act together.
Jack is the one doing a number on Jack.
2:08 PM: Calm down, drama queen. Jack Scheich is getting some bad publicity, and he's being poked fun at. But his life is hardly being "destroy[ed]."
FF matches
2:13pm Who are you to characterize Jack's public ridicule? Who knows what harassment this affair will bring to his life. He may lose his job and his biglaw career. Unlike Charney he may never even be given a chance to succeed. As a result of this he may never be given an opportunity to see if he can be the next Braff. In my opinion he is another victim of the Charney affair.
2:19 PM: you need a vacation (seriously!).
2:19-Do you even know anything about Scheich? He is a named partner in his own firm, so I doubt this will "destroy" his career. Moreover, if he is a "victim" as you believe, he choose to make himself one by entering into the fray with snap judgments. He is responsible for any actions that follow.
I'm also curious to know how Scheich can say he was "misquoted" when apparently multiple people received written confirmations of his position on the Charney case.
Finally, I don't think LeGal can be said to be flip-flopping. I think now they have realized that they need to resere judgment until the facts become clearer. That is what any good attorney would do.
2:23 I still don't think it's fair to attack someone in this way, but I foudn Jack's bio and he seems to be doing well.
Attorney Profiles
John F. Scheich
Richmond Hill, New York
Managing Partner, since 1972
phone (718) 843-7200
fax (718) 845-0275
email Email Me
Year Joined Organization:
1972
Areas of Practice:
Wills & Estates
Arbitration
Mediation
Mortgages
Trusts
Real Estate
Criminal Law
Litigation Percentage:
50% of Practice Devoted to Litigation
Bar Admissions:
New York, 1967
Pennsylvania, 1980
U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, 1970
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 1970
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1970
U.S. Supreme Court, 1975
U.S. Court of International Trade, 1971
Education:
St John's University, School of Law
St. John's University, New York, New York, USA, 1963
B.A.
Major: History
John Marshall Law School, Chicago, IL, USA
Published Works:
Conashaugh Courier, Editor, 1989-1992; Member, Editorial Board, 1988-1992, Columnist, 1981-1989
Representative Cases:
Ziko v. Wikstrom, 17299/90 (Supreme Ct. Queens Co. 1993)
Representative Clients:
Leo F. Kearns Funeral Home, Inc.
GMAC Mortgage Corporation
Classes/Seminars Taught:
Lecturer, Lawyers in the Classroom, 1979 - 1991
Estate Planning Seminar, National Business Institute, 1994
Trial Competition Judge, Civil Trial Institute, St. John's University Law School
Honors and Awards:
J. Edgar Hoover Award, 1967
Award of Appreciation, Civil Trial Institute, St. John's University School of Law, 1990 - 1991
Distinguished Service Award, 1991 - 1992
Certificate of Appreciation, Conashaugh Lakes Community Association, 1990
Distinguished Service Award, Kiwanis Club, 1992
Distinguished Service Award, Nassau County Executive Hon. Thomas Gulotta, 1989
Certificate of Appreciation, American Bar Endowment of American Bar Association, 1992
Presidential Order of Merit Award, President George Bush, 1991
Best Trial Lawyers in the U.S., Town and Country Magazine, 1985
Professional Associations and Memberships:
Queens County Bar Association
Member
Nassau County Bar Association
Member
American Bar Association
Member
John Marshall Lawyers Association, 1992 - Present
Treasurer
Criminal Courts Bar Association of Queens County
Member
New York State Bar Association
Member
New York State Trial Lawyers Association
Member
New York State Supreme Court, Queens County, 1972 - 1990
Member, Assigned Counsel Panel
Civil Court of City of New York, 1981 - 1990
Chairman, Arbitration Panel
Ra-Li Brokerage Corporation, 1975 - Present
Vice President, Board of Directors
Past Employment Positions:
Queens County, District Attorney's Office, Assistant District Attorney, 1969 - 1972
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Special Agent, 1966 - 1969
Fraternities/Sororities:
Phi Alpha Delta
2:07 PM: It was a different gay rights group - Lambda Legal, not LeGal -- that "reject[ed] his request for legal assistance." (I don't know if LeGal does impact litigation like Lambda does.)
BS on Scheich - his written response to that law student shows his true feelings
Hey Lat - Did LeGal remove it's statement? When I go to their website, I can't find it. BTW, good job on managing coverage of multiple "hot" stories on your site. I'm addicted.
I still see the LeGal statement:
http://www.le-gal.org/site/
It's entitled "Statement of Board of Directors of LeGal," dated January 23, 2007, 5 p.m. It's right in the middle of the page.
Man, someone at LeGal needs to brush up on subject-verb agreement.
Sadly, Scheich, who has worked hard in the past on LeGal's behalf, has just dug himself further in here. It's getting to be quite an embarrassing spectacle. I remain a member of LeGal and I will watch closely what further steps they take in connection with this matter. Obviously, the chorus of criticism has brought about their official retraction of Scheich's earlier statements.
That having been said, Scheich's email to Charney is a further insult to injury, especially for LeGal. I previously posted Scheich's own unambiguous ("WRITTEN") justifications for siding with S&C, namely 1. S&C represented LeGal pro bono, i.e. S&C incorporated LeGal's foundation; 2. S&C buys a $5,000 table at the annual dinner dance; 3. David Braff is an openly gay S&C partner and, since 1984, has been member of LeGal; 4. When approached by the media, Sheich felt the need to say something that would garner publicity for the organization. He did not choose to take the neutral position which his Board now clearly states is the correct position. He said what he felt in his heart was true, most likely, and he explained that such a statement about S&C and David Braff would raise LeGal's profile.
Now comes Mr. Scheich and tells Aaron Charney that he was misquoted. If he was indeed misquoted why did he explain to me that his pro-S&C statement was calculated to raise the profile of the organization? Scheich wrote, let me remind you:We are constantly struggling at LeGaL to become better known and more respected in the Legal community, amongst the Judiciary, and City Council etc. Accordingly it is imperative that when the media seeks us out, it is important that we make comment, as we did in the Court of Appeals decision recently on gay marriage. People see we are part of the respected legal community just by speaking out. So I had to comment. Of course, I could have said a very uninteresting thing like , let's wait and see how the facts turn out. Or it's too early to know what actually happened. Those comments probably would bot have been printed. So I tippy toed through the issue as gingerly as I could, but made it interesting enough and accurate enough to reach print.
His statement to ABC News and his defense of it after the fact appear to have been intentional. They are certainly consistent. I cannot understand why he would say now that he was misquoted. I note too that his email to Aaron Charney has somewhat of a condescending tone. "As you proceed through your career..." as though Aaron Charney could not possibly understand what it means to be misquoted. Aaron actually gave a phenomenal (live) interview on Report on Business television that aired in Canada. He was articulate and focused and spoke as a consummate professional. He did not appear to be nervous, he did not misspeak, he was not misquoted, he did not waver from his message. He spoke of the importance of his lawsuit to all similarly situated persons who face discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ironically, that should have been the primary focus of LeGal in its initial public statements.
Furthermore, I find it objectionable, and implicity unrepentent, that Sheich writes to Charney that LeGal will soon produce and official response "so as not to confuse you, S&C or any other interested gay attorney." Seriously? I don't think we are confused, but I note with regret his inclusion of S&C in that final note, indicating that confusing (or upsetting?) them, is clearly still on his mind.
Like others who have posted here, I notice Mr. Scheich's e-mail lacks an apology which I think he owes to Aaron Charney.
it's funny that none of the press thus far has mentioned the fact that these nonprofit impact litigation places like lambda or glaad rely on cooperating and volunteer attorneys (and the attendant administrative/staffing resources) from the litigation departments at large, powerful firms like S&C to litigate their cases. firms like S&C not only buy tables at their galas and have partners sit on their boards, but are essential to the impact firms' success in litigation.
it's funny that none of the press thus far has mentioned the fact that these nonprofit impact litigation places like lambda or glaad rely on cooperating and volunteer attorneys (and the attendant administrative/staffing resources) from the litigation departments at large, powerful firms like S&C to litigate their cases. firms like S&C not only buy tables at their galas and have partners sit on their boards, but are essential to the impact firms' success in litigation.
it's funny that none of the press thus far has mentioned the fact that these nonprofit impact litigation places like lambda or glaad rely on cooperating and volunteer attorneys (and the attendant administrative/staffing resources) from the litigation departments at large, powerful firms like S&C to litigate their cases. firms like S&C not only buy tables at their galas and have partners sit on their boards, but are essential to the impact firms' success in litigation.
Who is representing S&C???????????
Sorry, but I don't see anything THAT wrong with the original statement. He said at first blush he was going to believe the defendant. Isn't this what is supposed to happen? He is being criticized for prejudging the case by siding with the defendant. Isn't it more dangerous to side with the plaintiff? shouldn't we all be favoring the defendant until the plaintiff proves his case?
Sorry, but I don't see anything THAT wrong with the original statement. He said at first blush he was going to believe the defendant. Isn't this what is supposed to happen? He is being criticized for prejudging the case by siding with the defendant. Isn't it more dangerous to side with the plaintiff? shouldn't we all be favoring the defendant until the plaintiff proves his case?
Scheich's email to Charney is especially ludicrous because LeGal is basically apologizing for him their statement, confirming that at least they don't think he was misquoted.
Something else that's important to point out about impact litigation organizations like Lambda and others that didn't take on this case is that they probably didn't do so mainly because this ISN'T an impact case. If Charney were to win, it wouldn't establish any new case law to advance LGBT rights. Impact litigation organizations aren't free legal aid societies -- their mission is to establish new case law. New York City law already forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace, so it's just a matter of whether Charney is able to prove his allegations and win his case.
Anon2, I agree with you that it may not have been such a big deal if Scheich had not been speaking on behalf the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Greater New York. However, this is not a personal opinion. And worse, Scheich was responding not to an issue tangential to the organization's mission, but rather an unprecendent lawsuit filed pro se by a gay attorney alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation because of his sexual orientation. That is something an organization such as LeGal cannot simply react to with the first thing that comes to mind.
The original statement cited the fact that S&C had donated money and had an openly gay partner as reason why Scheich (implying LeGal) was inclined not to believe Aaron Charney's claim. That is very different from giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Scheich should have said, we have no comment and left it at that. Instead, Scheich clarified that to raise the profile of LeGal he chose a little more "interesting" response. In this short interview with ABC News, and the subsequent defense of his statements, Scheich cost LeGal credibility as a gay rights organization.
Anon2, I agree with you that it may not have been such a big deal if Scheich had not been speaking on behalf the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Greater New York. However, this is not a personal opinion. And worse, Scheich was responding not to an issue tangential to the organization's mission, but rather an unprecendent lawsuit filed pro se by a gay attorney alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation because of his sexual orientation. That is something an organization such as LeGal cannot simply react to with the first thing that comes to mind.
The original statement cited the fact that S&C had donated money and had an openly gay partner as reason why Scheich (implying LeGal) was inclined not to believe Aaron Charney's claim. That is very different from giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Scheich should have said, we have no comment and left it at that. Instead, Scheich clarified that to raise the profile of LeGal he chose a little more "interesting" response. In this short interview with ABC News, and the subsequent defense of his statements, Scheich cost LeGal credibility as a gay rights organization.