Brokeback Lawfirm: S&C Bends Over for Bloggers?
"This is just a rehash of his original, now dismissed, complaint with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations. We will continue to defend the Firm vigorously against these same baseless claims. Sullivan & Cromwell remains committed to fostering an inclusive workplace environment for all of its lawyers and staff and is proud of our track record of promoting diversity."
It's not a particularly exciting statement; but we were excited to receive it. Although they've been working extensively with the mainstream media over the past few months, Sard Verbinnen -- which S&C hired specifically for L'Affaire Charney (a different media relations shop handles the firm's general publicity) -- had never contacted us before.
And we weren't the only "new media" types to get the message. The PR gurus also emailed their statement to two leading Charneybloggers: Lavi Soloway and Professor Arthur Leonard.
Not to be outdone, Aaron Charney's lawyers spoke to us on the phone. We had a quick conversation the other day with Dan Alterman, of Alterman & Boop, who had this to say:
"The amended complaint is a wonderful opportunity for us to get this case focused back on the main issues -- especially the discrimination and retaliation claims."
Public relations firms reaching out to us; lawyers talking to us on the telephone. We feel so... legitimate!
Charney v Sullivan & Cromwell, Take 2 [Arthur Leonard / Leonard Link]
I Received This Email, Moments After Posting About Charney's Amended Complaint [Lavi Soloway]
Comments
It is refreshing to see that S&C is fessing up to the fact that it has been aware of the blogs and is notsimply able to control them with their clout, whch might have some impact impact on more MSM. It is also refreshing to see Charney communicating by way of counsel now. Perhaps this litigation can now move on with a ficus on the issues in the Complaint.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 08:56 AM
Their clout being that of S&C and its PR people^
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 08:57 AM
Good move on S&C's part. What would really shift the focus away from Charney, though, would be a bump to $185k for first-years.
Posted by: anon | May 24, 2007 09:32 AM
I don't recall any substantive claim in Charney actually being dismissed did it? So, did public relations firm not get what really happened? Also, the conspiracy claim was not part of the original complaint so how can the new complaint be a rehash of the same old baseless claims? Sounds like the PR company has just offered a negative pregnant statement. I was routing for S&C at first, but now it seems like they are pretty dirty folks.
Posted by: blindtiberias | May 24, 2007 10:34 AM
blindtiberias: Are you really questioning a PR firm for saying something literally true but slightly misleading? That seems to be exactly their job description.
Posted by: anon | May 24, 2007 10:41 AM
it's interesting that S&C hired a media relations firm for this one...there's probably a lot more that's going to come out in this story.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 11:03 AM
Same old complaint "with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations"? Complaints are, by their nature, a list of unsubstantiated allegations. Substantiating those allegations is called "discovery" and then "trial".
Seriously, S&C, don't let your PR firm "talk legal" without reviewing what they're saying. You're not Paris Hilton, and your PR folks shouldn't sound like unemployed former writers for long-canceled courtroom dramas.
Posted by: a noni mouse | May 24, 2007 11:11 AM
Same old complaint "with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations"? Complaints are, by their nature, a list of unsubstantiated allegations. Substantiating those allegations is called "discovery" and then "trial".
Seriously, S&C, don't let your PR firm "talk legal" without reviewing what they're saying. You're not Paris Hilton, and your PR folks shouldn't sound like unemployed former writers for long-canceled courtroom dramas.
Posted by: a noni mouse | May 24, 2007 11:17 AM
11:17, unfortunately, that's what PR and media relations is in legal disputes. the standard (only?)response to the complaint is that "it's a list of unsubstantiated (or merit-less) allegations". insert "defend" and "vigorous[ly]" somewhere in there, too, and you have just about the entire vocabulary of legal PR.
Posted by: anonymous | May 24, 2007 11:34 AM
got to love that there has not yet been one unequivocal denial of any claims
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 12:28 PM
Really makes one wonder what else S&C has done.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 12:46 PM
Lat:
The mystery is that the comments from both camps e-mailed to you are identical to those from the two sides that you already posted.
Why did they bother?
And has not this story already been made into a movie or something?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2007 08:42 PM
Interesting tidbit: Paul Hastings counsel to SC has recently upped their sponsorship of the Human Rights Campaign Dinner to 100K from 35K. "HRC" is the largest gay and lesbian political organization in the country...wonder how many HRC know that Paul Hastings is on the other side of workplace discrimination..hmmm
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2007 12:38 PM