s&c makes a good point about charney's attaching the partnership agreement to his complaint. it has nothing to do with his causes of action, and inany event, complaints are not allowed to have attachments. good luck mr. charney

Nice job getting the complaint, Lat. You now have your readers' permission to go to the bathroom, eat, etc. : )

The way i read the coplaint though, the Partnership Agreement made sense in a way. It shows that the policy he was complaining under was never gonna be enforceable against a partner there anyway and that the partners can do anything they want - even create a hostile environment and retaliate.

All the Partnership Agreement says is that the Committee decides everything. If they wanted a partner to leave, he or she would have to have done so.

Also, various defendants of S&C have used the justification that Charney worked exclusively out of Grinberg's office for years at a time and that exacerbated the contention that their working relationship was an "unnatural" one. So which office was it, Charney's or Grinberg's? And which partner worked next door?

You know my take on this. This (IMO) highly stretched countersuit is motivated by the perverse financial incentive given to Fasman and Bloom (Allan Bloom is the other PHJW counsel - make sure you do check out his firm profile) to inflame disputes.

Now that Charney has lawyers, one of whom even I know is a heavyweight (Alterman), they may be rewarded with a long, protracted and lucrative fight.

Is Alterman really such a heavyweight that a supposed 2L accross the country woudl know him?

Loyola2L. Please give it up. As has been said ad nauseum, any notion that Fasman and Bloom are the driving force behind this countersuit is absurd. A countersuit means either (1) good faith - what S&C alleges is true and, therefore, they at the very least have a plausible cause of action or (2) tactics - S&C wants to scare ABC into a smaller settlement. Whether there are more benevolent/PR-smart courses of action for S&C is surely up for debate. That S&C's outside counsel is duping S&C into a long, protracted fight so that outside counsel can profit is ridiculous. Particularly since Fasman is widely regarded as a preeminent management-side employment lawyer.

They would if they Googled him and took the Village Voice as gospel.

Yes. If you know how to do a westlaw lawyer analysis on him you'll see. He has a reputation for being a good guy.

I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that he's also gay.

Loyola2L --

Are you talking about Fasman, his bio says he's married with children.

OMG -- Charney is a complete moron.

Paragraph 19 is the smoking gun.

I didn't realize HIS complaint VERBATIM quoted that leaked presentation in the WSJ. What an idiot!!

You know, I'm a woman who has been exposed to sexual discrimination in the workplace. Never would it occur to me to fuck over innocent colleagues and clients in a quest for "justice".

Oh no no I meant Alterman. I was responding to 7:53.

I don't know how you judge prestige at the levels of people like Alterman at Fasman (both are at the pinnacle of the legal mountain) but IMO Alterman is at least as big as Fasman.

Interesting that S&C chose openly gay partner David Braff to sign the complaint as "of counsel".

Loyola, could you tell us why you believe that Paul Hastings is able to force S&C to act against S&C's best interests?

I am on Harvard Law Review and me no longer would want to work at S&C

It's intriguing how these complaints converge with what is alleged to be a major morale problem at S&C.

Funny how Charney was so willing to expose confidential client information publicly in connection with discrimination. It's weird that he had absolutely no loyalty to his own client. When I worked at another biglaw firm, I always thought of the client as "our" client, or "my client." I would never dream of embarassing them or considering them collateral damage.

But I suppose, assuming arguendo that Charney was treated like shit by his superiors, that such treatment breeds hostility towards every element of your job, including toward the clients you work on.

Hard to believe someone would be as stupid as to advertise that they stole a document that they then leaked to the press. Apparently GS didn't appreciate the implication that they denied employment on the basis of relationship to Charney.

I find it odd that Charney's supporters continue to rationalize tactics like gratuitously publishing irrelevant confidential client information in an attempt to embarrass the firm. A person with legitimate complaints would gather information pertinent to those complaints. By contrast, a blackmailer engages in blackmail. This looks more and more like the Duke rape case by the day.

"By contrast, a blackmailer engages in blackmail."

Word.

Charney's scorched-earth policy is difficult to defend.

8:20 I don't want to get into this again but a lawyer has a lot of influence. IMO it was in their best interest to settle this amicably when Charney was all alone, and looked down for the count. I really believe a sincere apology and a "OMG we didn't know how bad it had gotten" meeting, along with a "help you get on with your life" settlement would have ended it. I've seen this exact thing happen in sexual harassment cases. I know of one case where a woman was so appreciative of the company's post-lawsuit response that she never says a bad thing about them.

But apparently S&C/Fasman/Bloom had to get aggressive. Now that opportunity is gone and Charney is slowly gaining momentum (the Scheich resignation, getting Alterman and so on.) The worm has turned.

Also Braff's positive experiences at S&C don't negate the possibility that Charney wasn't treated so kindly by his group.

I've got to go and won't be back anymore tonight so enjoy your evenings.

Oglethorpe is back and zealously advocating for S&C again. Welcome back. ;)

Did you know Zach Fasman's tears cure cancer?

Too bad he has never cried.

Also, I heard from a Paul Hastings source that Fasman sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Fasman roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

Again, Loyola2L, you have posted over and over that Paul Hastings is duping S&C, and now you are backing away from it. With reasoning skill that you have displayed, it is amazing you didn't wind up at Southwestern.

Wow. Even if all of Charney's claims are true, what he did was without a doubt several orders of magnitude worst than all the "discriminatory" and "retaliatory" actions by S&C. What we are talking about here is insentivity v. treason. If S&C's principal damages derive from loss of reputation, etc. can anyone who knows the law comment on how the courts will go about determining damages? Looks like it is time for a new poll re: damages where one can vote on how much Charney will have to pay.

How has Loyola 2L "seen this exact thing happen in sexual harassment cases?"

Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that this guy is in law school?

So the real question is whether Charney will settle now. For $0. To make this go away.

That's what I would do. How can you possibly justify stealing oodles of documents from your employer? When you are an attorney?

Loyola 2L,

I think you really overestimate any influence that Fasman, or anyone else for that matter, could have on S&C's decision to take an aggressive stance w/ Charney. When dealing with sophisticated clients (even a GC of a public company), the client often ends up controlling and micromanaging everything you do in litigating their case (down to how you phrase something in a motion), much less making major decision such as whether to sue or not to sue someone. S&C is likely one of the most hands-on and controlling clients a lawyer could have. I think you are naive (or more accurately, by your own admission, totally lacking big firm experience) to think that Fasman or anyone could twist S&C's arm into suing anyone.

8:34 I know because I'm actually interested in the law, especially how cases turn out in the real world and what causes them to turn out that way. I'm very interested in the stuff we don't learn about in law school and think law school presents an incomplete and uninsightful view of how the law works in the real world. Any way I'm really running late. Good night.

Your comments are too interesting and need replies.

8:39, I seriously doubt Alterman is a settle for $0 kind of attorney. he's more like a $10mil verdict attorney IMO.

IMO you're blowing the document stuff out of proportion. All we're talking about is the Kodak email right? There was nothing damaging (or even interesting) in that.

8:40 - Fasman could be a hired gun. Who knows what goes on in their meetings. I still do think a lawyer has a lot of influence over their client. If they have no influence then I'm not sure that's a client they should want.

Bye.

Actually, I have come to believe that Loyola2L may well be Charney.

Lat, have any of his posts come from a loyola server? Easy enough to check.

I am also a law student. And I don't believe you. Perhaps it is different at Loyola, but at the T14 shop I frequent, no one cares enough so as to be as acquainted with the law and history as you.

Maybe I just gave you a compliment.

Anon 7:56 is correct. This is a tactical election that could accelerate settlement of the suit. It leverages Plaintiff and erodes his ethical high ground.

I'm with 8:44. Loyola2L says too much stuff that doesn't make sense if he doesn't have a personal stake in the case.

Wow I was on here around noon and Loyola 2L was posting... and he/she still is. Maybe you should start studying rather than posting on this website... and then you wouldn't have to complain about no job prospects.

Loyola 2L IS Charney!!

I seriously doubt Loyola is Charney

This is now officially a clusterf***. Anyone care to speculate about the extent of the harm that S&C will suffer this recruiting season? Or the next? Or the . . .In my opinion, until the posting of the complaint tonight, the scope of the damage to the firm was limited; it was broad, but it was limited. Now it'll be going on for months. Unless this thing settles like -*poof*- and ABC disappears tomorrow morning, Amelia Earhart-style, S&C is the new Shearman. I feel bad for my classmates who are headed to that mud-covered downtown meanie-tower. Spring OCI, anyone?

Sad3L - imagine as they slowly proceeds to trial for the next couple years... there are many other BigLaws out there for us to look at ... BigLaws that don't have this cloud over them.

I'd be happy to speculate, 9:09p.m.

Nil. Next to nothing. Nada. Aside from the further alienation of those who automagically accepted everything in the Charney complaint at face value... about whom S&C wouldn't give two sh*ts anyway.

Can someone please for the love of god make Loyola2L go away?

Anyone care to speculate about Sad3L and 1LIvy being the same poster? Such nice back 'n forth.

"S&C is breaking away from the pack in the wrong direction..." Indeed!!!
(Keeping up w ATL from intermission at 'Spring Awakening': the show rocks, and this play is good, too.)

Yea I can't imagine this having much of an effect on recruiting. Especially considering how gay-friendly the firm is on the whole.

Elated3L... we're not the same but thanks for thinking that way. You do belong at a place like S&C.

Can someone please explain to me what this moron was thinking, STEALING internal firm documents like that?

I mean, he's a Columbia law grad. How did he think this was going to go down?

Maybe you're right, Elated. This move will really allow the firm to play up that *we're assholes, and proud of it, and those frilly midtown outfits can suck one* brand they've got going.I guess I should be elated too, elated that I'm not headed to S&C. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed if you were heading there in September.Will you be interviewing at S&C, Ivy? (Are you looking NYC biglaw)? I'd be interested to hear other 1Ls--ones who intend to interview in the market--tell us whether this is likely to affect their bids. Maybe it's too early to tell.And no, I am not Ivy.

S&C's response is so Shannettaesque!

Clearly, Loyola2L is charney, and possibly Sad3L is too.

Come on. Charney's done.

1. Charney's case was dead on arrival. He conceded on Day 1 that he was not retaliated against. From Lat's interview w/ Charney:

"We asked him how his work at the firm is going."

"It's going okay, from a work perspective. I'm continuing to work on big deals."

Goin' ok and still workin on big deals? Seems like Charney wasn't really banished to Siberia. S&C still (errantly) trusted him with big deals.

2. S&C's complaint accomplished its purpose. Charney is no longer talking. His mouth and keyboard got him into trouble. It scored major points. Charney leaked confidential client information to the WSJ. Charney appropriated confidential files from other attorneys. Charney screwed up.

3. S&C doesnt care about damages. Charney doesnt have enough assets to make it worth it (presumably). And Charney has no claim to damages from S&C. He was paid up until February 1, and then he was fired because he violated express agreements in his contract.

he didn't steal S&C documents - what is he going to do with them? Is the secret Coke formula in some prospectus he was editing? Come on. They clearly checked his email account and saw he emailed some things to his home account and are just fishing for a claim. And as for betraying his clients, that is ridiculous. What non-public information is in his complaint that is problematic? I just don't understand how there can be so many S&C apologists on this board.

No. He leaked the Goldman Sachs reviews to the WSJ. These reviews were obtained during an internal review. He should be disbarred

white girls with asian guys

The GS reviews are plead on information and belief, with little apparent basis except the location of his office. In contrast, his complaint is plead with great specificity and he apparently has tapes to back it up- but people are willing to believe S&C?

It should also be noted that leaking personal reviews, when GS didn't redact the names when they sent it to S&C, is a poor excuse for a claim.

Most certainly. Rings true. Charney, having decided to sue his law firm, wanted to gather as much ammunition as possible for the ensuing PR battle. And he comes across a juicy slide presentation. The problem is, he over-uses a juicy partner quote.

So you blame the client for Charney's disclosure of confidential information? Bizarre.

Oh, and I believe the bend over comments and the poop comments. They also ring true. And I am sure there was substantial Canadian bashing, because, Canadians are so easy to bash. But I don't buy into the idea that S&C cared about Charney's sexual orientation. Being gay in a major law firm is a plus, not a minus.

8:15, re callling ABC a "moron" and an "idiot." I think there is still some room for context here... we shouldn't be that quick to get into name calling. Sure you wouldn't do anything to adversely harm colleagues, but most of us would readily say that... and most of us will never be put in the position ABC found himself in. Charney's story suggests partner Kotran was a big help in this process, maybe he had that assistance, which allowed him to be aware of or access various docs? I just think we should try to give benefit of the doubt, a little while longer. S&C's complaint is still not persuasive to me. But then I'm up way too late for a Monday! Another look at it with light of a new and hopefully warmer day, and I may have a more well-reasoned position.

Lavi:

I find it interesting that you are so willing to give Charney "the benefit of the doubt," while in contrast you don't seem to be willing to do anything of the sort for S&C's claims.....Agenda anyone?

Obviously, Lavi has an agenda. I think he even buys into the anti-Canadian stuff, which is hilarious.

"and most of us will never be put in the position ABC found himself in."

What? You don't think that the majority of Americans have encountered offensive off-color comments in the workplace at some point in their lives?

Welcome to America, land of free speech. The best approach to dealing with offensive speech is to confront it directly, not opportunistically demand millions of dollars while publicly defaming a respected law firm. That is blackmail. And I respect a law firm that is willing to stand up to blackmail.

And Charney was not some poor soul trapped in a job with no other options. If his work environment was unbearable, then he could have gone to work at another firm.

Now, I have an agenda? It was 3:59 a.m., and I did allow for the possibility that bleary-eyed, I may have a more well-reasoned position later....

Oy vey.

I don't have an agenda, unless you count my ardent desire that our profession could be spared what ABC endured, what S&C is going through, and what we all are left to explain to our peers about how lawyers treat each other.

(Somewhere it the blogosphere, though I can no longer find it, I posted what I thought was a humorous anecdote about being a Canadian (and an American, simultaneously) in this country. I'm not buying into anything. Vive la différence! Polite gets you far in life, my fellow Americans.)