Maybe you should ask those current S&C associates who post here. Something tells me they would know.

Lat, do you think AB will end up at another NYC firm?

I think he will end up on a tropical island, drinking a frozen beverage with a pink umbrella in it.

A la "The Firm" the book (not the movie) where he just goes away forever to hide, along with the firm's secrets?

Do we know for certain that he's not currently on said tropical island?

I got this after a search for Cromwell.

Please scroll down to see more cases. County Index Number Case
Status Plaintiff Plaintiff
Firm Defendant Defendant
Firm Appearance
Date Motion Documents
1 New York 600333/2007 Active SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY/WALKER AARON BRETT CHARNEY, 02/08/2007 001

Search in Progress...

Thanks!!! So the case is still listed as "Active."

Perhaps they are hammering out settlement terms, with final talks over the weekend, and will make it official next week.

This is weird. The WebCivil Supreme - Case Search shows that S&C is the plaintiff. Is this a case of the court system getting something boffo or did S&C countersue in a separate proceeding? Also perhaps some swaggering litigator-type can enlighten us as to what an NOI and RJI are.

WebCivil Supreme - Case Detail

Court: New York Civil Supreme Index Number: 600333/2007 Upstate RJI Number:
Case Name: SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, vs. AARON BRETT CHARNEY,
Case Type: Other Commercial
Track: Standard
Disposition Date:
Date NOI Due: 02/01/2008 NOI Filed: Disposition Deadline:
Calendar Number: RJI Was Filed: 02/01/2007
Jury Status:
Justice Name: FRIED, BERNARD J.

Attorney/Firm For Plaintiff: PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY/WALKER Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record Status: Active
75 EAST 55TH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
212-318-6000

Attorney/Firm For Defendant:

Even if they settled, it would not show up in court records for weeks. In these types of cases, the parties usually sign a confidential settlement agreement and the plaintiff then files a letter or motion with the court requesting that the case be dismissed. The court is not actively involved in the settlement and the agreement never becomes a public record.

NOI = Note of Issue (what you file after discovery to let the court know you are ready for trial)

RJI = Request for Judicial Intervention (what you file to ask the court to stick their nose in)

Nope - no mistake - looks like S&C has filed its own action against Charney, and it was started on 2/1/07 by an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction!!!!

If you click on the part of the court database that says Motion 001, it shows that it is a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff S&C.

The case is on for next Thursday, 2/8, before Judge Bernard Fried.

WOW!!!!!!

You have to understand that S&C's lawyer's primary interest is making as much money off this as possible, even if it means extending poor Charney's misery. A quick settlement is bad for him.

just as i suspected... a motion for preliminary injunction & TRO filed by S&C vs. charney. they may have been silent but they've been busy. Lat, get ahold of those moving papers... i bet they're juicy.

And the water muddies.... but is always clears in time for the jury.

Jury? I think if S&C's lawyer were to do the decen thing, he would settle and let Charney move on with his life. Realistically though I know he needs to bill time, and bring revenue into PHJW. So he will likely drag this out and bill as much time to this case as possible.

The defense lawyer is the only one who wins in these cases. S&C and Charney will lose no matter what happens.

So true. Even if it did go to trial and the firm won... it's like OJ. He won too but who actually believes it.

OK, let's try to guess what kind of a lawsuit S&C has brought. Here is my guess - libel and/or slander. Has Charney been writing and saying thigs about S&C outside of the official court papers? If so, I think S&C has sued him for defamation and has obtained a preliminary injunction against him. That would explain why Charney was unable to comment and sounded weird on the phone.

oh no they didn't!! OH NO they did NOT get a TRO!!!

You mess w/ the bull, you get the horns i guess.

It is all bad for the firm. Bad for the Plaintiff and BAD for the legal profession.

I'm going to guess the causes of action are:

1) malicious prosecution
2) defamation
3) slander

We should totally create a Charney support group. He naively entered the halls of justice, hoping for help, but of course he will simply be turned into food for the industry which feasts on naive people's misery.

He's a young, bright, small, good looking guy and I hope he pulls out of this and is able to move on with his life.

OMG!!! why did this have to happen on a Friday.

I wanna see this papers.

I meant smart not small.

ITA with you Loyola2L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like the whole Team Anison/Team Jolie thing...

TEAM AARON!

Here's a though - people can start wearing shirts that read "Team Aaron" on them, or buttons, or whatever. The others could have "Team S&C" if they want to of course. Some of us believe in the Constitution of course.

Can you "defame" a law firm? I mean, how is that possible?

Maybe it's publishing internal firm client emails on his website?

So I imagine the judge signed the order to show cause and there will be a hearing early next week?

Lat, are you going?

He put that on his website???? Then absolutely it is either a defamation suit or breach of fiduciary duty or trade secrets case. And now this makes sense - no comment from him and his website is down. The judge signed a TRO. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Corporations, etc., cannot sue for defamation (or slander, which is just a type of defamation)--it's a cause of action only available to individuals. So it'll be fab to see what they've brought.

I don't see it as so "wow." I am still more curious about the stuff in Charney's Complaint frankly. If any of it is true then WOW.

Reviewing my dusty mass media textbook, I stand corrected. Apparently, corporations can sue if the "matter tends to prejudice it in the conduct of its business or to deter others from dealing with it." All rightee then.

Honestly David Lat's coverage of this case gives Charney a lot more leverage than he otherwise would have.

Sure S&C's lawyer can bill hundreds of thousands of dollars dragging this out and harassing Charney, but David's on this case like like a pitbull and the constant coverage hurts S&C.

S&C's lawyer needs to not be an asshole about this. Offer Charney $500k (about 2 years salary) and end this. Sure he can bill $millions if he drags this out but it's just not right to do that to Charney. Charney is just a naive soul who got caught in a mess.

Similarly, Charney needs to drop it and accept. He needs to put aside any hope he had of $ millions and accept the settlement.

The settlement MUST include a system to help Charney move on with his life. It should be amicable. Win win.

no matter what, depositions would be really, really, really ugly.

But what if it is true that those things were said to Charney and THEN after he complained all kinds of shenanigans happened with his review and being shipped abroad and stuff? Think how tough it'll be for the guy to get a decent job again. It's not like he'll have a good reference from the only place he's ever worked for, right? Is $500K gonna do the trick? After taxes in NY that's a bit over $250K.

Ugly for Charney and S&C. Very profitable for S&C's lawyer.

i wondered about that when the case came out. if you file a lawsuit against your employer, and attach sensitive emails, as Charney did, as exhibits, is that protected? [He published the complaint on his website]

I mean, how does that work?

Loyola 2L....who are you?

The judge who (presumedly) signed the TRO, Bernard Fried, is super duper smart and is one of the most intelligent judges at 60 Centre Street. (Also he is married to EDNY Judge Nina Gershon). If he signed a TRO, he was right on the money.

9:15 -

I hear you and that's why the settlement must include some provisions to help Charney move on, and it must be amicable. A win win.

But if you stick to a demand of millions, then S&C's lawyer will just attack you, drag it out, take years of your life and ultimately you'll be in front of a New York jury who may be unsympathetic (do you honestly think harsh New Yorkers don't make homophobic comments among friends? This isn't LA or San Francisco)

Or say Charney gets a nice jury and wins say $2million (which is unlikely with a NY jury - NY juries are just not as sympathetic as say CA juries.) How long is that going to take? About 2 or 3 years of litigation. Even if he wins S&C will appeal and it will drag on further. Is even that worth it?

I know you may be comparing it to the huge gender discrimination awards in Morgan Stanley and the other case, but those plaintiffs made $millions a year and so as a multiple of annual salary those $million settlements weren't that much.

$500,000 in New York City? You gotta be kidding. If what he alleged is true, that would be less than a slap on the wrist. It would NOT provide incentive to firms to clean up their acts when it comes to such misconduct. $5 million on the other hand would certainly get everyone's attention.

Once again I find myself agreeing with Atty Soloway.

I'm an unemployed 2L at a toilet law school. I started posting here to deal with my disappointments. I'm top 25%. I sent my resume to hundreds of firms looking for summer positions but didn't get even one interview from one. It's now February and I'm pretty sure I won't get a good summer job.

And don't think the following is an indication of bias against Charney. I think he's a good guy, but . . . Honestly I would do anything to take Charney's old job, even with the harassment. A little harassment is nothing compared to the crap us toilet grads have to deal with on the job market.

I also have an interest in things like justice and feel bad for Charney who I think is a good guy, who should not have been forced to waste his promising life on this garbage.

Loyola 2L--what is your last name?

University. LOL

Lavi. Please research NY jury awards for discrimination and seriously consider the credibility of my advice - whether you like it or not.

Yes... but if Charney got a verdict think of the book and movie rights...

9:43. That's a very interesting point. If there is profit to be made by publishing this information, then that's clearly going to David Lat. After reading Lat's blog why would we want to buy Charney's book? We already know everything.

Not that David's doing this for money. He doesn't seem like that kind of guy.

Honestly I'm just not sure how much weight that has in negotiations. When's the last time a discrimination movie or book made a ton of money? (North Country is the last one I can recall.)

True. But everyone hates lawyers adn there's little with more mass appeal then layers going at each other.

True. But everyone hates lawyers adn there's little with more mass appeal then lawers going at each other.

S&C has all the leverage now. If this settles, it settles as a walkaway and Charney gets nothing unless LeGAL offers him a job. He's not talking not because a settlement is imminent, but because he's in a buttload of trouble.

Why is it that there are all sorts of flashing red lights and multiple posts - did Charney settle, settlement is imminent, how much did he get - when really it looks like SC just got the court to order Charney quiet. That's a much more plausible explanation to his nervousness and refusal to talk. Plus the RJI is pretty good evidence (better than the fact that somebody couldn't find the case on the docket). I think ATL jumped the gun a bit on this one to break the story and now has about five hysterical posts that are not just wrong but maybe totally backwards (if Charney was silenced and not settled). I guess ATL needs some sources outside of WLRK (like someone who is at SC).

What underlies your belief that S&C got a TRO? At first glance, I'm not seeing that on the admittedly slow Supreme Court website. At most, it seems the Court signed an order to show cause (with a hearing set soon). If Lat misses the hearing, seems like blogger-malpractice.

A TRO would explain why (1) his website is gone, (2) he won't talk for the first time in weeks, (3) Gallion & Spielvogel met the Garden City market at $75k(they have to gear up for Gina Gershon's deposition), (4) the guy from LeGaL got fired, (5) those guys in Boston limited the subject of their press conference to 1970s haircuts, (6) the guy at the Pentagon who criticized S&C for doing pro bono for Gitmo "resigned", (7) Vornado might lose the Office Equity battle. Those seven reasons.

Just a guess that S&C got the TRO based upon 1) Charney's sudden decision not to comment; and 2) Charney's taking down his website.

G&S met market? Has there been a memo? Can someone post the memo?

Has anyone from S&C declared prima nochta?

I think Pursuit of Happiness did well at the box. I think it was about discrimination from the commercials.

Loyola 2L... is this all you do? Go on various message boards on this website and talk about how crappy it is that you're doing well at Loyola and no firms like you? I'm guessin you knew what you were getting into when you decided to go to Loyola (as you've described it a "toilet" school)? No one forced you to go there... or to go to law school for that matter.

10:45 - any confirmation on G&S announcement? Was there really an associate committee meeting this morning?

hi, Yes pretty much. At least for the past few days. It's really helped me deal with the disappointment.

Loyola2L, you make some good points.
My comment, that $500K was nothing, not even a slap on the wrist, was not intended to suggest that a jury award for $5 million is assured, or that there is precedent for it (do a lot of gay associates sue their employers for anti-gay discrimination and retaliation, and go to trial?). Nor was it meant as advice to Aaron re what he should do if offered $500K; that's up to him.
My narrow point was that when a law firm earns nearly $400 million profit in one year, as S&C does according to ATL's numbers, $500K isn't much. Law firms watching this episode must conclude that they risk paying a heavy price if they are not vigilant in protecting their associates from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. We should hope that Aaron doesn't lose years of his life in this litigation, and, assuming that his allegations are true, that S&C does not get away with this conduct by throwing some chump change at the problem. That's all.

Hey everyone, there's a new thread up. Please continue the conversation over here:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/charney_v_sullivan_cromwell_or.php