The drama was fast-moving, indeed. I am trying to get it organized. Once I have done that I will post the rest of the story.

One new fact to emerge: Charney had another personal home computer the hard drive of which was apparently destroyed two months before this litigation even began.

I'm still unemployed.

Gallion could be sued for malpractive

Et tu, Gallion?

I wonder if the highly prestigious Association of Networks will punish Gallion?

Extremely prestigious Mr. Spielvogel can't be happy.

Gawd, this whole thing is just unbelievably great. The whole issue of whether ABC was discriminated against & whether he divulged client confidences is getting completely buried under not only collateral issues, but issues which are collateral to the collateral issues.

The extremely prestigious and highly credentialed Mr. Gallion is now apparently involved in any number of ethical lapses, the defense of which will surely require the services of a hand-selected, high-performing, pre-eminent member of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms.

I just read on line that Gallion was representing Exxon after the oily and more notorious than prestigious Exxon Valdez disaster. Is this gallion's own personal Exxon Valdez?

Oh no. I was hoping for a job with Gallion. How are they going to hire me if they get in trouble?

Lat... where is an insert of the superduperly eminent Mr. Gallion? Is there no way to get ahold of the great one in the tux where he's smiling like something out of "Zoolander?"

How much money have Fasman & PHJW made off this case so far?

if this is true then what the **** (asterisks in all caps!) was S&C thinking bringing charges of spoliation against Charney?

that blows my mind. if true, it's not only completely unethical, it's ragingly stupid.

so i'm thinking it can't be true. can it??

I think it can be true. I can totally see a mega-firm getting very arrogant.

Lavi, what are the next steps for the parties? Did the judge issue any orders at the conference?

To anyone not supporting Charney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Mafia
That is all.

Well gosh 9:43... the way S&C makes itself out I would think this link you gave would be offensive to all the lawyers there who signed the firm's "we are happy gays here" petition way back when.

That's right, 9:43. If it's in the Wikipedia, it must be true, amirite?

Why would Grinberg be the only party allowed to make notes? Can someone educate me?

If all it took to make ABC destroy his hard drive was S&C telling him to do so, sounds like they should have told him to drop his suit and publicly apologize. The Force is strong with S&C.

Why would Grinberg be the only party allowed to make notes? Can someone educate me?

If all it took to make ABC destroy his hard drive was S&C telling him to do so, sounds like they should have told him to drop his suit and publicly apologize. The Force is strong with S&C.

I posted the second part of my observations from yesterday's hearing. I'll put the final post up later with what remains of my photographs.

Cannot wait for Part 3 Lavi. Thanks!

Judge Orders Lawyer Depositions on Meeting in Charney Matter

The judge who is overseeing the legal battle between Sullivan & Cromwell and former associate Aaron B. Charney, yesterday ordered depositions of three lawyers who participated in a confidential Jan. 31 settlement meeting at which Mr. Charney's lawyers claim a Sullivan & Cromwell partner "ordered" the ex-associate to destroy his personal hard drive. The Feb. 4 destruction of the drive by Mr. Charney, who sued the law firm for sexual orientation discrimination on Jan. 16, has been touted by the firm's lawyers as a possible instance of evidence spoliation and grounds for dismissal of the ex-associate's claims (NYLJ, Feb. 9). The firm filed its own suit against Mr. Charney on Feb. 1 over his alleged disclosure of confidential client and firm information, some of which was believed to be on the hard drive. But Mr. Charney has claimed he felt coerced into destroying the hard drive by partner Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, who allegedly yelled at him at the Jan. 31 meeting. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried (See Profile) ordered that Mr. DiBlasi be deposed on the limited subject of what was said about the hard drive at the meeting. He further ordered the limited depositions of two other lawyers in attendance, Sullivan & Cromwell associate Gera Grinberg and Mr. Grinberg's then-lawyer Edward Gallion of Gallion & Spielvogel. Mr. Grinberg is a key figure in Mr. Charney's suit against the firm; most of the alleged discrimination by partners concerns their persistent insinuations that the two associates were in a relationship and that such a relationship was inappropriate. Mr. Charney denied having such a relationship in his suit. At the hearing yesterday, Mr. Charney's lawyer, Michael Kennedy, said Mr. Grinberg had been present at the settlement meeting and had taken notes reflecting Mr. DiBlasi's threats but that those notes had been later destroyed by Mr. Gallion. Mr. Kennedy argued this destruction could also constitute spoliation and said Mr. Gallion, a onetime Sullivan & Cromwell associate, appeared to be acting as "an agent" of the firm. Mr. Grinberg has since retained a new counsel, Gary Ireland. Sullivan & Cromwell's lawyer, Charles Stillman of Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, said the firm had nothing to fear from the depositions and would go along but he said he might later seek the depositions of Mr. Charney's lawyers, most of whom were hired after the Jan. 31 settlement conference but before the destruction of the hard drive. - Anthony Lin

I agree with 12:09! This scared of S&C logic is ridiculous. I can believe that DiBlasi may have told him to destroy the hard drive - but Charney actually did it 1) after he had lawyers; 2) after his lawyers wrote to S&C to preserve evidence; and 3) after the countersuit and order by Judge Ramos. Charney has to take responsibility for that regardless of what DiBlasi may have said.

I don't get it - ABC destroyed the hard drive because he was supposedly "yelled" at during a settlement conference. What is he - 13 years old? He got "yelled" at so he just cracked? Wha??

Something is not making sense. He had enough confidence to sue his employer but felt so intimidated by being allegedly "yelled" at that the totally destroyed his computer?

Though Lavi's detailed and sympathetic write up of ABC's case (FYI - not *all* gay lawyers are sympathetic to ABC merely because he's a gay lawyer) was insightful, it's interesting that ABC is really trying to distract from a big issue here - that he destroyed his hard drive. Even if he was "yelled at" - so what?

I think something is missing. I don't think we got the full story. I think there's something bad in connection with S&C and that wacky Gallion

One thing I don't get about Lavi's ongoing coverage is his insistence on referring to ABC as a "rising star" or some such other plaudit. Beyond ABC's (obviously self-serving) claims in his complaint, is there really any reason to think this guy was any better than the average M&A associate. In fact, given the fact that it seems he would only work with ONE senior associate and ONE partner, it would seem there's a strong argument to be made that he was in fact sub-par, so why keep crediting him as being any great asset to the firm?

Well, 11:28, if I had to guess, I'd say it's because Soloway is engaging in the time-honored practice of shading the facts to fit his conclusion. Sort of like oftentimes whenever you read a court decision you can tell how it's coming out just from reading the facts.

There was some bad stuff on that hard drive - bad for both S&C and ABC - that has not come to light.

Gallion being involved is just too weird a coincidence.

Lat, are you sure you haven't somehow created this entire case for our amusement??

Seriously folks... is that Gallion in a tuxedo pictire gone for good? The "Zoolander" one?

Good point 11:28, I probably should not have referred to Charney as a "rising star" without making clear that it was not my personal view that he was one. What I meant, and will now go back and clarify, is that it is a phrase I thought accurately conveyed how Aaron saw/sees himself (from his Complaint and subsequent interviews). I have no independent knowledge of his star, rising or otherwise. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

As for 11:33's assumption, I don't know much about the reference time-honored tradition, but you may be making a useful point worth heeding. I feel that I set out honestly, attempting to write about my experience as an observer sitting in the courtroom, watching the key players do their thing. It's very possible my writing appears biased or "shaded," but it is after all only my impressions that I am sharing. Others can offer their competing views on what any of these proceedings mean (or don't mean). I'm always fascinated to read what Anthony Lin, Peter Lattman or Anna Schneider-Meyerson write in the mainstream media after we've sat only a few feet away from each other and observed the same hearing. They are professional journalists, I'm a guy writing his personal journal-like blog.
Well, I'm going to get to work on the final part of my posting from yesterday's hearing. Thanks for the feedback!

I do not believe for one moment that Grinberg hired Gallion to represent him. Why would Grinberg hire an attorney whose alleged expertise is in internal corporate investigation?! And here's something from their website:

To have the necessary credibility with courts and others, an internal investigation needs a legal investigative team with years of experience in private practice, but no prior relationship to the company.

Gera Grinberg knew Steve Spielvogel from UBC.

Steven Spielvogel didn't go to UBC. Stop making things up.

Spielvogel went to U. Penn (college and law school):

http://www.internalinvestigationlaw.com/Bio/StevenSpielvogel.asp

But did he or Gallion ever teach at UBC? I have a vague recollection of something like this.