Can't Fried just strike all the prejudical material from the complaint?

Looks like the firm is really scared to address the true employment issue head on.

"Looks like the firm is really scared to address the true employment issue head on."

No, that would be addressed on a summary judgment motion. Too soon to touch it now.

"Once, while having sex in a tractor-trailer, part of Zach Fasman' sperm escaped and got into the engine. We now know this truck as Optimus Prime."

"If you spell Zach Fasman wrong on Google it doesn't say, "Did you mean Zach Fasman?" It simply replies, "Run while you still have the chance."

I didn't think the declaration really needed such detail.

If this motion were granted, would other law firms try to claim that lawyers working in them couldn't sue their firms?

ATL gets mentioned in footnote 15.

The motion refers to Charney as a "former associate" in the preliminary statement. Did I miss something in ATL's coverage? I thought he was on paid leave or the like.

"I thought he was on paid leave or the like."

He was unti Feb 1, when the countersuit was filed.

S&C's public relations damage control requires attacking Charney's credibility, but this motion to dismiss underwhelms.

I think Lat should find out who the Paul Hastings associates were who wrote that motion. And the S&C ones involved in this case as well. Surely the partners aren't doing all (or even most) of the work and the public has a right to know who the scabs are. Let's find out their names, pictures, resumes, how long they've been Republicans, etc.

Stephen Ehrenberg and Jessica Klein are two of the S&C associates on the case.

See "Further Update":
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/sullivan_cromwell_v_charney_a_2.php

http://www.sullivancromwell.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=405

http://www.sullivancromwell.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=384

Too bad Jessica's last name isn't "Stein" instead of Klein. That movie was really cute!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264761/

Paul Hastings has now created an "and see" signal.

Error on pg. 17 of PDF. "The court described continued." If I were making $160k/yr, I'd make sure to proof.....

10:13 P.M. I agree: underwhelms.

Motion clearly overreaches. On the one hand, S&C claims that the inclusion of client and firm confidential information was gratuitous, but OTOH, S&C argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed because further confidential information will come out -- though not directly at odds, there's a lot of tension between these two positions. Court will probably go the "alternative relief" route (S&C is certainly well aware of all of this).

to anon @ 10:30pm: your use of the term "scabs" is inapposite. while the relationship between associates and partners could conceivably be likened to that between union employees and management, there is no "strike" to justify the analogy.

to wit, when a union goes on strike, the replacement workers hired by management are working against the interests of the union employees. but here, the associates at PH/S&C are working against one man - charney - not against the whole class of associates.

in fact, the PH/S&C associates are arguably working toward the *benefit* of associates generally. charney appears more and more every day to be a lazy and incompetent freeloader, the likes of which hardworking associates have to put up with every day in this city. thus to the extent charney is exposed and punished, a real benefit inures to those of us who actually earn our salaries.

rather than being scabs, these PH/S&C employees are more like white blood cells, purging the system of dead weight.

What leads you to believe that he has been shown to be a lazy and incompetent freeloader?

why do i believe charney is a freeloader? because according to those who worked with him, he abandoned his post. for example, one poster writes:
"ABC and his mentor associate categorically isolated themselves from almost every other person in the M&A group and coasted by with assignments from a single partner while the rest of the group operated as an integrated whole to get through the extraordinary amount of work that flows through this place every day."
-- see post dated January 18, 2007 11:34 PM, at http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/charney_v_sullivan_cromwell_aa_1.php

another poster writes:
"Aaron began working for another mid-level associate on a regular basis and, after a few months, began working exclusively with that associate for 3+ years as basically that associate's designated assistant. He went so far as to work out of that associate's office, leaving his own office essentially an unused and empty room with a computer on a desk. This arrangement did not last for one killer deal, but for several years."
-- see id, post dated January 18, 2007 08:45 PM

anyone who has worked in NY BIGLAW can tell you that getting assignments through a single partner is almost unheard of. and demoting yourself to an associate's assistant is downright aberrant. while the above posts are not dispositive, charney's complaint does not dispute that this was his working arrangement.

Ahhh. The S&C highly paid PR machine at work. :)

This brief has very little merit. Further, I have a hard time buying that "he said he worked on legal issues for X client" = breach of client confidences.

Wow 1:58 in the morning - how much time and effort did it take to pull your stuff together adn type it all out... and look at the time it posted. Dude/Dudette... you gotta chill and find something fun to focus in in your life. Food, Fashion? You are way too intense.

9:38,

Does referencing S&C's PR machine over and over again help you to believe that things are still looking good for Charney? You do understand that he can never work as an attorney again?

The PR machine thing is legit. As for the guy working again, who cares.

10:33,

So all the posts that tend to discount Charney's case are posted by PR people hired by S&C. You actually believe that?

I don't think so at all. I just definitely can see S&C's PR people using the blogs here and frankly, it amuses the heck out of me. LOL

I am not too familiar with the law, but I think many of the disclosure claims are slam dunks for S&C.

Charney didn't need to use all of this stuff in his complaint. He would have been much better off sticking to the basic discrimination claims. What was the point? Its been a while since I read the complaint but I can't even remember now...

It reminds me of one of the first lessons I learned as an associate - never say one word more than you have to - it can only get you in trouble. I think this is a common mistake of associates trying show how clever they are. Charney never learned this one.

to anon at 10:38: since you choose to attack the messenger only, i take it that means you concede the message? i.e. you agree that charney's working arrangement was aberrant and he was, in all likelihood, a freeloader.

p.s. "LOL"? you've got to be kidding me. are you a 14 year old girl?

Come on. It is totally amusing that S&C would deign to mess about on blogs. It is just such a MSM kind of entity.

Agree that the brief is underwhelming. Yawn.

12:36 you make an excellent point. First of all she maks way more than $160k. S&C should hire more proof-reding tier 2 grads like me.

Welcome to the world of the fact witness, David!

If S&C subpoenas your emails with Charney, are you going to jail to protect your sources, a la Judith Miller?

Lat, you did get namechecked in fn 15 and Exhibit I.

Speaking of, can someone post the Fasman Affirmation and Exhibits?