The article pretty much gels with the complaint.

Honestly, i get the sense that people at the firm must have played a game of chicken with this kid and lost.

99 out of 100 associates, confronted with the scenario Charney was allegedly confronted with, would quietly swallow their pride and slink off to work somewhere else. Very, very few would be willing to 1) sell out their sources or the people who tried to help them, by publicly identifying them, and 2) file a lawsuit against a huge lawfirm.

I for one admire Charney. He had the brass ring and took a chance. Some of us never even get the chance to take the chance. I'd put up with most anything to be a retired Sullivan partner someday.

99 out of 100 gay men would blow it off as well.

Gay men who come out after the age of 21 should be forced to wait 5 years before filing discrimination suits. Grow a little skin - it's biglaw after all.

This kid was born to be a plaintiff's attorney. He's smart and possessed with a sense of justice and wrongdoing. He also loves attention.

He should just hang out a shingle and start practicing.

L2L go away now. You're just grasping at straws to stay relevant and, well...you're not.

Seriously, does S&C have a rep as being chockful of assholes? This article implies so.

I don't remember that from my recruiting days. I remember it not being as "lifestyle friendly" as places like Debevoise, DP&W, Paul Weiss, but not that it was filled with assholes.

Am I wrong?

Or head to M/W or another similar place. What better justice than sitting across the table from your former tormentors, putting the screws to 'em?

That was the reputation S&C had when I was in law school (graduated 1998). It was known for being macho, in an unpleasant way. It tended to attract frat-boy types as summers. I'm not surprised that Charney ultimately didn't fit in there.

Lat's statement:

"Now, we're not saying that Aaron Charney isn't gay (although his credentials are questionable)"

is ridiculous.

Most gay people struggle with coming out.

I am 100% gay and I had a girlfriend in college - never had sex with her.

Charney was obviously a late-bloomer because of his professional ambitions.

Many gay people play a "game" of trying to fit in before accepting the truth about their sexual orientation. That is very common.

I think the stuff at the end doesn't mean Charney is crazy. It's more like he just has no idea what he'll do next and misses the work he loved even though the venue he was working in was outrageous and cannot be returned to. What he said kinda makes sense in a sad sorta way.

Agreed with 8:58. It's kind of like a wrinkled, matured law partner musing "I still dream of being a professional model." Not because there's a snowball's chance in hell of it happening, but because even beleaguered people need REM sleep.

I think the article is highly damaging to Charney because it describes the timing of when he decided/declared he was gay. If the firm didn't know he was gay because he himself couldn't determine whether he was gay or not, his claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation fails.

Too many people posting as L2L.

this is BY FAR the most flattering pic of Krauty ever.

I don't think the whole "the whole floor thought Grinberg and Charney were hittin' it" is very helpful to the firm.

Would Grinberg have a cause of action if he wasn't gay, but everyone thought he was anyway?

I mean, the harm is the harm. Where does it say you have to actually be gay?

What's more unnatural? Charney’s relationship with Grinberg or a non top 10% tier 2 student in biglaw?

Michigan with 18k/year vs. NYU with no aid.

Thoughts?

Is yearning a thought? I guess it’s more of an emotion.

i can't see charney fitting in at any biglaw firm. i'm still reeling from the fact that as a 1L he went and bitched out his professor because he was unsatisfied with his grade. and when his professor wouldn't budge he tried to escalate it by filing a complaint with the columbia law school administration. who does that?

charney is a pompous, selfish asshole. the only people in this whole saga i have sympathy for are charney's "friends" - grinberg, kotran and serota - whom charney threw under the bus the first chance he got. read page 5 of the article:

"[I]t’s striking how far out of his way Charney went to expose everyone involved to public view—even his friends. He named Grinberg in his complaint, when he might easily have redacted his name or called him, say, Associate A."

talk about stabbing someone in the back. and people are applauding charney for that? all i have to say is that with charney gone S&C has gotten rid of at least one asshole.

So you guys figure Grinberg's career is finished?

the article makes it seem like Charney's kind of crazy, but NY Mag somehow feels bad for him. doesn't anyone think that maybe Charney just cracked under the pressure of working at S&C? I think that Charney just put too much pressure on himself throughout his life and just lost it one morning.

8:24, Paul Weiss and Davis Polk are "lifestyle friendly" compared to S&C? LOL. They're just as bad. Debevoise does have a more genteel reputation, though.

who's this ex-girlfriend?

11:11pm, absolutely agreed. DPW is about as close to being a lifestyle firm as cravath.

and 8:28pm, what kind of frat boys did you see going to S&C? everyone knows that S&C attracts nerdy types, while the frat boys go to simpson or skadden.

10:06pm, if all you care about is a firm job in NY then take michigan with the 18k. michigan does just about as well as NYU at placement in the NY firms, so you might as well save yourself some money.

other law schools you might consider however are columbia and penn. both of them do significantly better than either michigan or NYU when it comes to placement in NY firms. i would take either of those schools without aid over michigan with aid.

I would take Columbia over Michigan with aid, but I would not take Penn over Michigan with aid. Are you a Penn 1L by any chance?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=157236

Boston Grand Jury to Begin Hearings on B-School Rapes

Published On Wednesday, May 07, 1980 12:00 AM

By ALEXANDRA D. KORRY

A Boston grand jury will begin hearing testimony today on the April 19 rapes of a Business School student and her guest inside the woman's Gallatin Hall room.

Suffolk County District Attorney Timothy O'Neill said yesterday that his office hopes the grand jury will hand down an indictment against Daris J. Davis, one of two men suspected in the case, by tomorrow.

Both female victims and a male friend who was allegedly assaulted by the two suspects will testify at today's hearings.

If the grand jury indicts Davis, a trial will be scheduled sometime in late summer.

University and Boston police are still searching for the second suspect, who eluded the police during a foot chase following the rapes.

MIT and University police arrested Davis, a 19-year-old from Dorchester, shortly after 2 a.m. on April 19. He was arraigned in Brighton District Court on charges of rape, assault with a deadly weapon and robbery.

Police sources said the two suspects allegedly accosted the B-School student and her male escort outside Gallatin Hall, forcing them at knifepoint inside and to the victim's room, where another woman was staying.

After forcing the male to strip, the two suspects allegedly raped the women and then forced them to carry their valuables to a car, sources said last month.

In response to the rapes, the Business School administration met with student group leaders last Friday to work out methods to improve the security on campus.

Concluding that the police security is "good in general," the group decided to institute a locked entry-way door policy, which students had opposed prior to the rapes, Louise Hersey, director of administrative operations and assistant dean of the B-School, said yesterday.

10:49- that's what I'm wondering as well. Can't be great for Grinberg to be characterized as merely "competent" and basically second-fiddle to his junior. Maybe that's why he kept Charney close? Not everyone can be a star, and competent at that level is pretty damn good, but still sounds sound great on your resume. Apparently not everyone shares the view that he is "affable": http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/brokeback_lawfirm_gera_grinber.php#comment-18718

From the article, it is clear that Charney isn't all there, but we all know (and usually try to avoid) slightly delusional people like him that feel everything is personal and can't believe that there can be another explanation than his. Good luck going back to S&C. If you love M&A, why not Wachtell?

10:49- that's what I'm wondering as well. Can't be great for Grinberg to be characterized as merely "competent" and basically second-fiddle to his junior. Maybe that's why he kept Charney close? Not everyone can be a star, and competent at that level is pretty damn good, but still sounds sound great on your resume. Apparently not everyone shares the view that he is "affable": http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/brokeback_lawfirm_gera_grinber.php#comment-18718

From the article, it is clear that Charney isn't all there, but we all know (and usually try to avoid) slightly delusional people like him that feel everything is personal and can't believe that there can be another explanation than his. Good luck going back to S&C. If you love M&A, why not Wachtell?

The article left me with two clear conclusions: First, Sullivan & Cromwell is uniquely miserable. I work at a place with a reputation for being very tough, and nothing like this would be tolerated. It'll be hard to feel sorry for myself again.

Second, my perception of Charney shifted from thinking of him as slightly noble (if a little misguided) to pretty tragic. Just a sad guy who had a painful time coming to terms with himself, put too much emotional investment into his job as a result, and then saw the atom split when what sounds like intense anxiety about his sexuality collided with office politics and some truly horrifying characters. The article couldn't possibly be more anti-Sullivan, but it portrays Charney as a broken person.

On a completely unrelated noted: 11:44's law school advice is idiotic. NYU and Michigan place just as well in NYC as Columbia; at best, Penn is on par with the other three. Consensus is that NYU and Michigan are both a lot more fun than the other two, if that matters to you.

i'm a columbia 3L with aid, so i didn't consider penn or michigan; i'm just giving advice based upon my knowledge of how well different schools place in the NY market. i know of at least three penn 2Ls going to wachtell this summer, but so far i haven't heard of any michigan students. likewise at cravath/S&C/davis there's a ton of HLS, CLS, and penn students, but hardly any from michigan. with biglaw starting salaries at $190K+ (including bonus), i think you'd be crazy to choose michigan over penn, even if michigan did offer you aid.

of course if biglaw isn't what you're after then the equation changes. i would absolutely recommend michigan over penn if your goal was to be a SCOTUS clerk. but i'm assuming that the 10:06 poster is more interested in a firm job than clerking.

Am I the only one turned on by Korry? I like her nerdy hot look.

Are you all serious about Michigan, or is this some internet humour?

To the 0L choosing between NYU and Michigan,
Don't listen to people on the internet. Most simply do not know what they're talking about. Fordham places better than Michigan. Forget about NYU.

Look at this: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/news-2details.ihtml?id=612&nid=281

As the chart above indicates, NYU places three times as many people as does Michigan. Michigan isn't in NYU's league and is way overrated by USNWR.

Pick for fit and then factor in how much the aid means to you. Both are great. After Yale and Harvard it's pretty much a wash with these schools. Anyone who tells you otherwise has bad ideas about their own pedigree.

what that chart doesn't mention is that most of the fordham grads in the top firms are actually contract attorneys who get paid a pittance of what full time attorneys make, and who are summarily hired and fired as deals open and close.

the chart also doesn't correct for the fact that fordham has a large class size compared to some of the other schools. if you don't score in the top 30% of your class at fordham good luck getting a job.

obviously any T14 school is a better bet than fordham regardless of aid.

By the standards of that chart, Georgetown beats Yale.

Interesting insight CLS3L - assuming what you wrote is true.

Supposedly the reason Yale has so few people in biglaw is because their graduates choose more clerkships/PI work and also the relatively small student body of Yale.

Well a quick search of Skadden's attorney listing contradicts CLS 3L's assertion about Fordham. Fordham has more Skadden attorneys than Michigan. NYU has way more attorneys than both combined. Do you have any proof for your assertion CLS 3L?

more about contract attorneys here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1097686264560

money quote:
At Paul Weiss, staff attorneys are hired on three-month renewable contracts with salaries starting at $80,000 per year, compared to $125,000 for first- year associates.

if you go to fordham you may land a "job" at a top firm but you'll be making crap and dealing with job insecurity every three months. read between the lines.

You don't have one shred of evidence confirming Fordham's biglaw placement consists of contract attorneys. Please admit you made that "fact" up. Further, why would you lie about something like that? What do you gain by spreading false information?

Thanks for the contract attorney article CLS3L. I think I have a shot at a contract job.

According to the most recent U.S. News survey, Fordham ranks first among tier two schools in producing graduates with chips on their shoulders.

Biglaw seems pretty rough and tumble. Can you even survive without a chip on your shoulder?

to anonymous at 1:58am,

you are aware that skadden is the wal-mart of NY law firms? like wal-mart, their business model is premised on charging a cut-rate price for every transaction. then they make up for lack of profit with high volume. try comparing skadden's profit per deal to that for wachtell or S&C, and you'll understand why nobody who wants to do serious M&A work goes to skadden.

but even at a firm as crappy as skadden, a fordham grad will have a tough time getting an offer unless he scores in the top 30% of his class. just ask some of those skadden attorneys what kind of grades they got at fordham, and i'm sure most of them will have done very well, got onto law review, etc.

not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here. just laying out the terrain.

Chip on his shoulder

Meaning

Having a harboured grievance or sense of inferiority and being quick to take offence.

Origin

This is reported as originating with the nineteenth century U.S. practise of spoiling for a fight by carrying a chip of wood on one's shoulder, daring others to knock it off. This has more than the whiff of folk-etymology about it, but in fact it is the actual derivation of this phrase. The two earliest printed citations that refer to chips on shoulders bear this out.

Firstly, in 1830 the New York newspaper The Long Island Telegraph printed this:

"When two churlish boys were determined to fight, a chip would be placed on the shoulder of one, and the other demanded to knock it off at his peril."

The actual phrase 'chip on his shoulder' appears a little later, in the Weekly Oregonian 1855:

"Leland, in his last issue, struts out with a chip on his shoulder, and dares Bush to knock it off."

"you are aware that skadden is the wal-mart of NY law firms?"

Are you serious? Here's another fact for you to ponder. Placement at DPW:

NYU - 81 lawyers.
Fordham - 14 lawyers.
Michigan - 16 lawyers.

You can do the same search on S&C's or WLRK's websites. The chart is accurate and your assertion about Fordham's numbers being due to contract attorneys is a lie.

dear fordham student with chip-on-shoulder,

what kind of "evidence" do you want? an affidavit? i'm telling you what i saw and what i heard about when i summered at a biglaw firms in NY (one prestigious firm in 1L, and one slightly more prestigious firm in 2L). frankly, most of the fordham grads i interacted with were contract attorneys. and they were treated like second class citizens. lower on the totem poll than summer associates or even paralegals. it was depressing.

just because i can't send you a link to a NYT article to prove my point doesn't mean i'm lying. and just because you go to fordham doesn't mean you'll end up as a contract attorney. but you have to drop this absurd idea that someone considering law school, who has a choice between michigan and NYU, should even for a moment consider going to fordham.

You're just a liar. The numbers indisputably prove it. You have nothing to confirm your claim that Fordham's biglaw placement consists of contract attorneys.

I seriously want an answer to this question: Why would you go on the internet and spread lies about Fordham's placement? What in the world do you gain by that?

My shoulders are too drooped to support a chip. It keeps falling off.

dear shoulder chip,

i'm going to try to explain this to you slowly, because apparently students from fordham have a hard time grasping simple concepts. (in that regard your school is similar to loyola.)

your numbers do not "indisputably prove" anything. when people talk about law firm placement, the number that matters is NOT the total number of students hired from a certain school, but the proportion of students hired out of those that applied. fordham and michigan may have a the same total at DPW, but i guarantee you that michigan has a higher proportion.

there's several reasons why NY firms get fewer applicants from michigan than they do from fordham. michigan is a national school so a lot of graduates go to other regions, such as the midwest or DC. but fordham grads apply almost exclusively to firms in NY. in addition michigan students have more options to work outside of private practice. many of them will go into government or academica. but a fordham grad will have a much, much harder time getting hired as a law professor.

thus the fact that the total at DPW for fordham grads is the same as for michigan grads PROVES my point - namely, that no one with any sense would choose fordham over michigan. and that's before considering the fact that many fordham grads end up as contract attorneys.

i think it's great that you've got school pride, but i don't think columbia is better than harvard, so i can't see why you would think fordham is better than michigan.

good night...

Regarding Lat's love of difficult bosses--i can only think of that old Eurythmics line...."some of them want to use you...some of them want to be used by you:"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSwJCeprtcE

My name is Legion, for we are many.

"Leland, in his last issue, struts out with a chip on his shoulder, and dares Bush to knock it off."

I knew somehow we'd find this was all Bush's fault in the end.

Am I the only one who believes the original
'Michigan with 18k/year vs. NYU with no aid' post was a nefariously ironic joke, intended to illustrate just how crappy the intelligent debate and discussion in these forums has become? If any of you have ever been to the pre-law and law student forums of endless stupidity (autoadmit, law school discussion, etc.) that kind of superficial, pointless-without-context- question is the catalyst for hours of uninformed opinion and endless hearsay from people not old enough to know how to do their own taxes. Get a grip, people. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

Didn't you realize? Responding to the ironic joke is in itself taking the ironic joke to the next level.

Anyway, everyone I've heard of who went to Michigan seemed to love it because professors are actually nice to you there. That seems like a good enough reason to go.

CLS3L,

Let's review. I showed you that Fordham has twice as many Am30 lawyers as does Michigan. You then lied and said Fordham's lawyers were contract attorneys and for that reason Michigan actually places better at these firms. I then showed you that at two top firms, Skadden and DPW, Fordham has at least as many full time partners and associates as Michigan. Your contract attorney lie having been exosed, you claim it’s because these are NY firms at which Fordham has an advantage. No they’re not NY firms. They’re national firms. They're the firms everyone wants to go to. Then you claim it's because Michigan's graduates go into government but you have nothing to back that up. You just made it up.

You lie so easily that I almost wonder if you're psychotic.

Now look, this has gone beyond a debate about schools. This is now a sociological debate. I want to know right now, why would you go on the internet and lie so profusely. What in the world do you gain by that? Are you so void of any character that you lost all ability to distinguish the truth from a lie? I hope wisdom saves any firm, client or person who has the misfortune of relying on you for anything.

Who cares about this law school debate. Find another blog or thread.
All that has been proven here is that some folks at Fordham are very, very defensive and prone to using the name "liar" to characterize someone who disagress with them.

Or when they lie.

“I truly don’t know,” he says. “In an ideal world, this would run its course, the people who have done something wrong would be punished, and the firm would take steps to change the environment. I would come back and return to my career.” After everything that has happened, he still dreams of working at Sullivan & Cromwell. “Is that impossible?” he asks.

Bravo to Aaron for expressing hope that those who mistreated him be punished, but he doesn't stop there. He also hopes the firm will change the environment for all associates present and that he will in future return to his career there. Bravo to him for his optimism, but also for considering the potential positive impact this will have for future associates. (And I venture to guess, that it will influence BigLaw generally, and probably already has started to have that effect.)

Yes, this may be "the ideal world" as Aaron himself says, but you don't move the ball forward on civil rights, especially employment discrimination, without someone standing up and saying "I won't take it anymore." At this time, ABC is that person.

I enjoyed the NYMagazine article and I'm so glad Judge Fried denied S&C's motion for a gag order! Keep talking to the press Aaron. Or let one of the hardworking blawggers out there get a blogosphere exclusive :-)

Lavi Soloway must marry Aaron Charney. Lavi's about to become a father of two:

http://babynameproject.blogspot.com/

ABC would be a great stay-at-home dad. He certainly will have enough time on his hands!

Lavi, I'm trying to gain insight into the mind of a pathological liar here. Something a bit more important than S&C v. Charney. Please do not interrupt.

LAT: PLEASE DO A PIECE ABOUT LOYOLA 2L. THAT GUY IS THE ULTIMATE TROLL ON SEVERAL MESSAGE BOARDS AND HE STILL HAS TIME TO BE A SUCCESSFUL PARTNER AT A TOP 10 FIRM. I KNOW THIS FIRST HAND.

Lavi wrote: "Bravo to Aaron for expressing hope that those who mistreated him be punished, but he doesn't stop there. He also hopes the firm will change the environment for all associates present and that he will in future return to his career there. Bravo to him for his optimism, but also for considering the potential positive impact this will have for future associates. (And I venture to guess, that it will influence BigLaw generally, and probably already has started to have that effect.)"

Isn't S&C already pretty gay friendly already? Something like 11 openly gay partners. Strikes me as a pretty big number. While the goal of making an employment environment more gay friendly may be noble, filing a trumped up complaint and running to every media outlet and then demanding *5 million dollars* may not be the best vehicle to accomplish the goal. The means doesn't justify the ends.

Oh, 10:47am, I'm so sorry that this debate is boring you. Why don't you go fuck off? In fact I bet you are CLS3L posting anonymously, because you're afraid that I've exposed your lies, and now you want a face-saving way to end the debate. So it's true. Not only are you a liar, but a malicious psychopath.

But I still want to know why you are on the internet and so profusely lying about Fordham? What do you have to gain by that? Your assertion about Fordham is a lie. The numbers indisputably prove that Fordham is a better school than Michigan, NYU or even your much vaunted Columbia when it comes to placement at the top 30 firms.

Are you lying because you don't have a job at one of said firms? Because you are so insecure about your own career, and your own inability to get a job, even though you have an Ivy pedigree? Maybe that is why you feel the need to lie about Fordham. To make yourself feel better.

But as much as you try to lie about this, the numbers don't lie, instead they expose you for the fraud that you are. Some lawyer you will be. I have taken apart your lies piecemeal and when I challenged you to respond what do you do? You run away, and start posting anonymously for cover.

Sorry CLS3L, but in a court of law your lies will not stand up. And you will not be able to run away or hide for cover under anonymous labels. In a court of law lying liars like you will be exposed for the malicious psychopaths that you are.

I'm the original anonymous and I didn't post the last note. It's sort of on the point though.

Wait the numbers don't prove Fordham places better than NYU. Not even close. But they do prove it places better than Michigan.

No I'm the original anonymous, and I've been posting all along. Who are you? And why are you lying and pretending to be me? Are you CLS3L in disguise? I don't understand why you're still here and why you're still lying.

CLS3L is stuck up but anonymous needs to get off the ad hominen attacks. geez. He apparently thinks if he can use lie/lying/liar at least twice in each sentence, he wins the argument.

CLS 3L lied. Pure and simple.

Lavi wrote: "Bravo to Aaron for expressing hope that those who mistreated him be punished, but he doesn't stop there. He also hopes the firm will change the environment for all associates present and that he will in future return to his career there. Bravo to him for his optimism, but also for considering the potential positive impact this will have for future associates. (And I venture to guess, that it will influence BigLaw generally, and probably already has started to have that effect.)"

Isn't S&C already pretty gay friendly already? Something like 11 openly gay partners. Strikes me as a pretty big number. While the goal of making an employment environment more gay friendly may be noble, filing a trumped up complaint and running to every media outlet and then demanding *5 million dollars* may not be the best vehicle to accomplish the goal. The means doesn't justify the ends.

Lesson #1. Don't hire 25 year old kids to work in incredibly stressful departments unless you are SURE they are mature enough to deal with it.

Lesson#2. Teach your partners to treat people with respect. No throwing papers, talking filthy. It demeans and degrades the speaker and the listener, and drives away the talent.

Lesson#3. Kids who were told they were smart from the age of 5 and who always did well in school will often have a really, really tough time handling criticism as adults. The part of this article no one discusses is how Charney REFUSED to stop paling around with Grinberg when instructed to stop. That makes no sense, unless he was hurt and angry that he was criticized as a worker.

This Michigan vs. Fordham analysis is about as dumb as it gets - Fordham is a NY school, Michigan places well in NY, but it is a midwestern school, and most students there want to be in the midwest, not NY.

The websites of top chicago firms don't allow for searches by school other than Katten Munich, in which Michigan grads dwarf Fordham. Latham, a top firm without a NY dominant office, has 125 Michigan grads to 14 Fordham grads (unfortunately, the database includes undergrad, and I don't have the time to bother, but you get the point).

The Am30 chart measures placement at national, not just NYC firms. Please don't make assumptions re: the content of the evidence.

Why would it actually make any difference if Charney was palling around with the other guy as long as the work got done? It was obviously being done and done well so who cares who fraternizes with whom. That's no excuse to tell someone there's feces on a paper or to doctor reviews. Geez

Why would it actually make any difference if Charney was pal
ing around with the other guy as long as the work got done? It was obviously being done and done well so who cares who fraternizes with whom. That's no excuse to tell someone there's feces on a paper or to doctor reviews. Geez

making comparisons based on raw numbers without adjustments for relevant factors is just retarded.

if you really want to compare schools, there are plenty of studies available.

http://www.autoadmit.com/studies/ciolli/ciolli.final.pdf
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2006job_teaching.shtml
http://www.calvin.edu/admin/csr/students/sullivan/law/
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/1996_06_scotus_clerks.shtml
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1168423325385
etc.

Even assuming that the work "was obviously being done and done well," ABC and GG deciding to exclusively work together as a package deal hurt morale of the other associates who played by the rules and took assignments that were assigned to them. None of the other associates in the department understood why ABC was being favored by being able to pick his assignments and members of his project team. It is the employer's right to control the manner in which associates are assigned projects.

Of course, that doesn't justify a partner saying there's feces on a piece of paper (if that allegation is true) but it's not sexual orientation discrimination. The partner maybe had a bad day or maybe was a complete ass. Also, the NY Mag article makes clear by relying on ABC's admissions that the partner probably didn't even know ABC was gay. Bosses are often mean and even unfair. It doesn't mean S&C violated the law, discriminated against ABC because he was gay or that ABC deserves 5 million.

Regarding the alleged "doctored" reviews - who knows if it's true. It seems a bit too much of a conspiracy theory. Though I know the same theory worked for OJ when he claimed the photos of him in bruno magli shoes were doctored. I wonder what ABC's evidence is. How is S&C going to be able to prove the negative - that the reviews weren't doctored. Seems like a rough spot for S&C to be in.

Seems like S&C is in a rough spot too.

Aaron Charney has made an admirable attempt to stand up for himself against a very powerful entity. Like gays, lesbian and transgender persons, no African American, no Jews, no Latino/a or Hispanic attorney should have to hear derogatory language from a partner at an esteemed law firm. S&C had its chance. The partners that are alleged to have made the most egregious comments obviously denied making them. But Aaron pushed on, and it's reasonable to conclude (from NY Mag and other sources) that he did so not because he's overly sensitive, but because if you don't stand up for yourself, you are ultimately enabling the rude/crude/homophobic behavior by sending the message that you are content with being labeled and marginalized thusly.

I cannot say whether S&C has broken the law, but I do know that changing homophobic behavior begins with standing up for yourself. Aaron Charney did that, and at great risk. Even if he made a few mistakes along the way, the point here is that assuming his allegations are true, we should be focused on why the offending partners haven't been punished and on what ameliorative steps can be implemented.

How are those partners able to deny making the offending statements if there was a witness to some of them? But then, I suppose then that explains in part S&C's desire to settle and it explains what this lawsuit is all about.

Lavi,

Your cognitive dissonance abilities are a profound inspiration to me. If you click your heels and say "I want to believe it, I want to believe it," does it make all the confusing facts go away and give you clarity? It must be nice.

I think Soloway rocks. I love the way he writes and usually agree with him as well. A nice combo.

Anonymous at 2:06

I don't know who the AmLaw 30 are because I don't subscribe, but a free article describing the Am Law 100 says 14 of the top 15 firms on a PPP basis are headquartered in NY. I suspect almost all of the top 30 are NY based firms.

Ask why Fordham picked the top 30? It's not a recognized group. Why not the Amlaw 100? Why not the Am law 200? Those are Amlaws two groupings.

Someone earlier in the comments, maybe you, made reference to skadden's website, which is one that allows searches by school. According to that website, in Skadden's Chicago office, there are 14 Michigan lawyers and 1 Fordham lawyer. In Skadden's DC office, there are 9 Michigan grads, 1 Fordham grad.

Fordham is an excellent local school. It happens to be located in the top paying legal market, so it does well at the top paying firms. Good for Fordham -- I'm not ripping it.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a national school. Because Michigan places lawyers nationally, and not necessarily in NY, it doesn't match NY city based schools on placement at the highest PPP firms. It is probable that more than half of the best students at Michigan don't go to NY.

I demand proof that Charney is gay!

ABC - please visit this site and enroll accordingly:

http://www.seancody.com/page.php?frame=model&wrq3ev1=137afee6fb0b2d9934435d3125d5bcfc

For this stupid-assed chart to have any meaning, you'd need to look at the number of graduates from each of the listed schools, factor in geographic advantage (Fordham meaning more in New York than it does in Chicago or D.C.) and then account for how many graduates from which schools go on to prestigious government jobs, clerkships, etc., instead of going straight to the oh-so-recognized "AmLaw Top 30" list. I didn't go to any of these schools but have worked with plenty of people who did, and the difference between NYU, Columbia, Michigan and Penn is so incredibly slight that there isn't any meaning to debating which school is "better" or which has a fictional placement advantage. They're all incredibly well regarded schools. Provided you're in the B+ grade range at any of them, you'll have no problems getting hired, period.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar spreading malicious lies on the internet and I would like to have a sociological debate as to why these liars are spreading lies and misinformation on the internet -- why would they do that? In other news, Fordham Chip clearly is gunning to become the new Loyola 2L.

This Michigan vs. Fordham debate is silly. I think both sides have good points. As a general matter, Michigan grads will have a better shot at getting a job in a major law firm than a Fordham. Most law firms have a grade point cut off before they will even screen a student and I know my firm will go much deeper into the class at Michigan than at Fordham as a matter of grade cut off. But, a student from Fordham who makes the grade cut off and who has a great personalty and interviews well will more likely get a job than a dweeb from Michigan who makes the cut off but interviews poorly. However, especially if you want to practice in NYC, Fordham has lot of alumni in NYC and who actively recruit Fordham grads for their firm. There are great partners who went to Fordham at all of the big NYC firms. All that a law school does is set whether a law firm will recruit graduates from that school and how deep in the class the firm will go as a screening matter.

8:59 p.m. what can I say? Profound inspiration is hard to come by in life, so rejoice. :-)

I agree that to the extent that I persist with assumptions about Aaron Charney's motivations and his version of events, my comments may come across as the musings of a pollyanna. (I'm not sure it qualifies as cognitive dissonance since that implies some anxiety results from the conflicting ideas.) I cannot simplify that which is confusing, and none of us will ever know all the facts, but I can focus on the question: what would S&C do in the future if another gay associate was harassed or discriminated against by homophobic partners? Let's make it easy and say in the next case there are multiple witnesses. What would the internal process look like? How are such partners punished? How does BigLaw ensure it has taken every measure available to create a non-hostile work environment for LGBT, female, racial or ethnic minority associates? Surely they would do what ever they could to avoid this airing of dirty laundry, litigation or expensive settlements. I would love to hear gay S&C partner David Braff's take on this.

(F. Scott Fitzgerald famously spoke of holding two opposing ideas in one's mind simultaneously. "One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.")