Okay, this isn’t as amusing as the Alexandra Korry haikus that have been unleashed in the comments. But then again, few things are.

Courtesy of ATL reader “Josef Stalin,” here’s a Lolcat graphic, in honor of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:

Lolcat [Wikipedia]

P.S. Please vote for Jordin Sparks in American Idol!!! Call 1-866-IDOLS-02, or text “VOTE” to 5702.

Even Professor Althouse, a diehard Blake Lewis fan, kind of agrees: “So, okay, let Jordin win. Blake will be fine. It will be better this way.”

We tried — we really did. We aggressively solicited reader comments about S&C M&A partner Eric Krautheimer, one of the principal players in Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, to see if he could be made anywhere near as interesting a character as his colleague, Alexandra Korry (at right).

The answer: NO. This comment is representative of many others:

Eric is gruff and abrupt and does not suffer fools or mistakes lightly. I’ve heard him yell and I’ve seen him rant and rave. But at the end of the day he is a genuinely good person who deserves better than being dragged through the mud in this frivolous suit.

We tried to turn Krautheimer into a divo; we tried. But at the end of the day, the dramatic possibilities just aren’t there.

Some folks are rock stars, and other people aren’t. Some people are Scalias, and some people are Souters. It’s that simple.

So back to our favorite S&C partner: Alexandra Korry, the Queen of Mergers and Acquisitions, who most definitely IS a rock star. We love her to the ends of the earth.

After the jump, we discuss this fascinating article about her, from Corporate Board Member Magazine.

In the continuing saga of Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, there are two central “villians” (assuming you take Charney’s side — which is about 60 percent of you).

The first villian is Eric Krautheimer, the partner who allegedly made the “bend over” comment. The second is Alexandra Korry, the M&A queen who allegedly referred to Charney’s “unnatural” relationship with another male associate.

In the pages of ATL, we’ve seen extensive discussion of Alexandra Korry and her rumored personality quirks — but relatively little about Krautheimer. Some of you have chalked up this discrepancy to sexism.

We’d like to make things right. We’ve heard general statements to the effect that Krautheimer is “a nightmare to work for.” We’ve also heard “defenses” of his alleged conduct in Brokeback Lawfirm along these lines: “Krautheimer isn’t anti-gay. He’s just an a**hole — to everyone, gay or straight.”

So we KNOW there are stories out there, although we’ve received little in the way of specifics. We hereby request your tips about Eric Krautheimer, which you can send to us by email.

Here’s one little story that came our way:

An overworked associate went to see Eric Krautheimer. He wanted to quit because of brutally long hours. Eric’s response: “I don’t want to hear about it. I billed 3900 hours last year!”

We’re not surprised. Eric Krautheimer is many things, but he’s definitely not lazy. Over the past few weeks, in which Charney v. S&C has been hogging the headlines, Krautheimer has kept a low profile. He’s immersed himself in his work, doing what he does best: working on big deals.

We’re not that far into 2007, but Krautheimer has already handled some major matters. He was involved in the giant Vornado/Equity Office battle, and after his client walked away from that fight, he plunged himself to the Central Parking/KCPC Holdings transaction. (We hear about these things because we’re on the S&C deal distribution list.)

Perhaps Eric Krautheimer, since the start of Brokeback Lawfirm, has started treating his underlings with greater civility. But we’re sure there is some dirt out there, even if it’s old.

Please feel free to share it with us by email (subject: “Eric Krautheimer”). Thanks!

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Eric Krautheimer (scroll down)

Here’s some juicy gossip about the case that everyone can’t stop talking about: Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Some of this information has previously appeared elsewhere, but this letter nicely synthesizes everything.

It’s long, so we’ll post it in two parts. Here’s the first installment:

While I’ve hesitated until now to write, your coverage of Aaron Charney’s lawsuit has been extremely entertaining, if often wildly inaccurate.

Like many current and former associates at S&C, I’m torn between my indifference towards Aaron (who was standoffish at best and somewhat obnoxious at worst) and my recognition of some genuinely negative aspects of the firm as portrayed in his complaint. But ultimately I have to come down on the side of the firm, because from where I sit Aaron’s story — while it may be peppered with, or “larded”, with some actual facts — doesn’t really paint a picture of discrimination or retaliation.

First of all, I think the idea of S&C being anti-gay as an institution is completely laughable. I’ve even heard fellow associates express concern that — all other things being equal — being straight is a liability when it comes to making partner. I’ve never heard a homophobic, racist or sexist comment, although I’ve heard rumors of a few. It’s rumored as well that Aaron himself made a homophobic comment or two in his more deeply closeted days. Who knows. Maybe I just inspire caution in this regard.

The letter continues after the jump.

This is a continuation of our prior post, Brokeback Lawfirm: The New York Magazine Piece (Part 1), which discussed the first half of Robert Kolker’s New York magazine article about Aaron Charney.

Our discussion picks up on page three (web pagination) of Kolker’s piece. At the top of that page is this fabulous graphic, entitled “Notes on a Scandal”:

It’s arguably a little derivative of an earlier New York Observer graphic (discussed here). But the textual elements are new, and some of the featured individuals are different.

The illustrations are amusing. They’re perhaps the most “pro-Charney” part of the whole article, since they’re so unflattering to the S&C lawyers, who are drawn to resemble animals. H. Rodgin Cohen looks like a frog, and Alexandra Korry looks like a chimp.

Our further thoughts on the article appear after the jump.

Yup, we watched the Academy Awards ceremony last night. We sat through the whole damn thing. As always, it was overlong. But at least we were struck by inspiration.

It’s only a matter of time before the Aaron Charney story gets turned into a Lifetime Original Movie. And when it does, we have a recommendation for who should play powerhouse partner Alexandra Korry:

Watching this video clip of Meryl Streep’s red carpet arrival last night makes the Korry-Streep resemblance even clearer. It’s all about the lank hair. Furthermore, their heads have exactly the same oval shape, and their facial features are very similar.

To be sure, Streep usually sticks to feature-film work, rather than made-for-TV movies. But she has done SOME television work over the years, for which she has received Emmy and Golden Globe Awards. And wouldn’t the award-fodder role of Alexandra Korry be juicy enough to tempt Meryl over to the small screen?

(No, it’s NOT too similar to Streep’s Oscar-nominated turn as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. Miranda was icy, feminine, feline. In contrast, Alexandra Korry’s professional success rests upon her acting manly and tough, “like one of the boys.” According to Bob Kolker’s NYM article, Korry is regarded as “brutal” and “very profane.” Those are not adjectives one would apply to the quietly cruel Miranda Priestly.)

Oscar arrival: Meryl Streep [WFAA.com (video)]
Meryl Streep [IMDb]
Alexandra D. Korry bio [Sullivan & Cromwell]

We are huge fans of the delicious Alexandra Korry, the high-powered Sullivan & Cromwell partner who figures prominently in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the lawsuit brought by gay lawyer Aaron Charney against his former employer.

In the course of our writing about this case, numerous comments have been made about Korry, a mergers-and-acquisitions lawyer renowned for her brilliance and her toughness. Here’s what the S&C website has to say about this magnficent M&A diva:

Alexandra Korry joined Sullivan & Cromwell in 1986 having done stints in journalism and commercial banking. She was elected a partner in 1993.

Interesting! We’re guessing Korry gets her (alleged) pirate’s mouth from her time in journalism, and her business acumen and shrewdness from her time in banking. Back to the S&C site:

Ms. Korry has extensive experience in representing U.S. and non-U.S. clients in a wide variety of mergers and acquisitions transactions, focusing on strategic investments, negotiated acquisitions and dispositions and joint ventures. Among her representations are Microsoft, UBS, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Eastman Kodak, Koninklijke Philips Electronics and Siderca.

Ms. Korry is active in a variety of community organizations, including the Harlem Educational Activities Fund, and is a retired member of the Board of Visitors of Duke Law School.

In light of her involvement with all of these charities and non-profit groups, we’re guessing the answer is yes to this commenter’s question about the Dalton School. Perhaps her kids are or were students there?

Okay, we’ve heard the official law firm take on Alexandra Korry. Now, let’s hear from ATL commenters.

Check out their collected remarks, after the jump.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

We previously praised Anna Schneider-Mayerson’s great reporting. But we must also give props to the graphics team at the Observer, whose handiwork is shown above. Nice work, guys!

Random observation: David Braff and Eric Krautheimer look much younger in this photo montage than in their S&C headshots. Heck, Krautheimer looks halfway cute. But the expression on his face says, “I’m a nasty, sadistic SOB.”

Associate Gets Crushed Beneath White Shoe [New York Observer]

(Yes, we know. According to Gawker, the formulation “Best. [X]. Ever.” is a blog-media cliché. But we don’t care. And we doubt that this cliché has ever been deployed in the context of Continuing Legal Education — so we get a free pass.)

If you’re (1) short on New York CLE credits, and (2) as transfixed as we are by the Biglaw train wreck called Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, have we got a suggestion for you.

A reader tipped us off to this CLE event, taking place on March 8 at the Princeton Club in New York:

Employment Law for the General Practitioner and Corporate Counselor
Thursday, March 8, 2007

7.5 TOTAL CREDITS: 6.0 credit hours of practice management and/or professional practice; 0.5 credit hour in skills; 1.0 credit hour in ethics

This popular, basic-to-intermediate level program, updated and revamped from previous years, is structured to cover on a practical basis the issues and problems typically arising in today’s workplace on which corporate counsel, or a private practitioner with a general practice, may be called to handle on behalf of the company or the employee.

What’s so interesting about this? The presenters. Two of the lecturers are A-list celebrities of L’Affaire Charney: Zachary Fasman of Paul Hastings (at right), who represents the embattled megafirm; and Theodore Rogers of Sullivan & Cromwell, who is working on the case in-house.

We have advice for Mr. Fasman on how to structure his CLE presentation. Check it out, after the jump.

We haven’t seen as many films this year as we usually do. But one of our favorites, either our #1 or #2 pick for the year, is The Queen (directed, and brilliantly so, by Stephen Frears).

Here’s a decent plot summary:

In late August 1997, just as Prime Minister Tony Blair was moving into 10 Downing Street, Princess Diana died in a Paris car wreck. England went into traumatized mourning deeper than anyone could have predicted, while the royal family — Diana’s estranged former inlaws — offered no public reaction at all.

As resentment toward the royal cold shoulder built into a monarchical crisis of public opinion, young Mr. Blair [attempts to intervene] with the Queen, [urging] the House of Windsor [to make] a public demonstration of something like humanity.

But Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) resists Blair’s call for a more public show of empathy. She is a deeply traditional woman, and as far as she’s concerned, Diana’s death is a “private matter” — since Diana, divorced from Prince Charles some time ago, was no longer a “royal” or “HRH” at the time of her death.

The Queen’s commitment to tradition makes her tone deaf on the public relations front. She does not know how to navigate the complex and challenging world of the modern mass media. The Queen fails to see the crisis in confidence that is looming — a crisis that threatens the institution of the monarchy, which she loves above all.

What we must now ask is:

Is H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Biglaw version of “The Queen”?

Our reflections on this question, after the jump.

Well before Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell was ever filed, the venerable law firm was dealing with some serious issues. As aptly summarized by New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, “Sullivan & Cromwell lost about 30 percent of its associates in 2004 and 2005. It might take more than a raise to fix that.”

From a fascinating rather interesting Wall Street Journal article by Peter Lattman (which we meant to write about yesterday, before we got swamped by all the pay raise news):

Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers.

The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like “thank you” and “good work” to associates they supervise.

What else should partners do? “Return associates’ phone calls as quickly as you would a partner’s or client’s,” said one bullet. “Be sensitive to not canceling associates’ vacations,” said another.

Additional bullet-points made these helpful suggestions:

“Don’t tell gay associates that they like taking it up the ass (because they might be tops rather than bottoms).”

“Refrain from subjecting associates to profanity-laced tirades in which you tell them they should be fired.”

Guess Eric Krautheimer and Alexandra Korry missed that meeting.

Discussion continues after the jump.

We’ll get back to the subject of pay raises for law firm associates in a minute. For now, here’s a quick update on the other story that Biglaw is abuzz about: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, the case filed against S&C by associate Aaron Charney, alleging anti-gay discrimination and retaliation.

We’re monitoring coverage of this lawsuit through a news feed. Here are links to, and excerpts from, the latest stories:

1. Maple Grief [TheLawyer.com]

[O]ne charge [in the Charney Complaint] strikes [us] as particularly heinous. And that is that partners at the firm said the prevailing attitude internally was that “S&C considers all Canadians to be irrelevant”.

Given that the firm’s M&A lawyers spent most of last year defending Canadian nickel producer Inco on a £9.3bn hostile bid, we would be keen to hear Sullivan’s arguments played out in a tribunal.

2. Fake-Lawyer Jokes Better Than Real-Lawyer Jokes [New York Magazine / Daily Intelligencer]

A very brief mention — but with a shout-out to ATL:

Aaron Charney, the gay associate suing his former firm for discrimination, hasn’t gotten the support he expected from New York’s Lesbian and Gay Law Association. [Above the Law]

3. The Tough Road Ahead in the Lawsuit against S&C for Anti-Gay Discrimination: The Plain Truth about Plaintiffs [FindLaw]

Those of you who have been hungering for a dissection of Aaron Charney’s case by an employment lawyer will appreciate this excellent article. It’s by Professor Scott Moss, who teaches employment discrimination law at Marquette. Before entering academia, he practiced plaintiff-side employment law for several years, at Outten & Golden LLP in New York City.

It’s quite interesting. Highlights and our commentary, after the jump.

We have a lunch to attend, so we’ll be gone for a little while. We’ve arranged for items to be posted in our absence, though, so please visit early and often.

While we’re gone, please feel free to share your thoughts on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, in the comments. We’ve been finding your comments highly informative and entertaining.

We especially welcome comments about Sullivan & Cromwell partner Alexandra Korry (at right). If the allegations about her from the Charney Complaint and ATL reader comments are even halfway true, we have the HUGEST CRUSH…

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Later!

Alexandra D. Korry [Sullivan & Cromwell]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

We’ve been running the same still photo of Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, over and over again. You’re probably sick and tired of seeing his mug (appealing though it may be).

But now we have more to offer you. If you’d like to see and hear an animated Aaron Charney, to make your own judgment of his credibility, you’re in luck.

Aaron Charney has given an on-air interview to Report on Business Television, Canada’s leading business news television channel. The segment was titled “Aaron and Goliath.” Check it out here (around the 44th minute of the broadcast).

It’s quite interesting. And, of course, they go into the subject of anti-Canadian animus.

We’d like to hear your thoughts on the video. Please place them in the comments. Thanks.

SqueezePlay [RobTV.com (video)]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

(Because, you know, they have better things to do with their ten-foot poles.)

The New York Observer’s Anna Schneider-Mayerson has penned an interesting article on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Here’s the link.

Random aside: When ATL holds its “Legal Journalist Hotties Contest,” expect Anna Schneider-Mayerson — a Harvard-educated blonde beauty — to give Jan Crawford Greenburg a run for her money.

Much of Schneider-Mayerson’s article will be familiar to regular readers of Above the Law (since we’ve been “covering the crap” out of this case, as promised). But the piece does contain some new information. Like this:

Mr. Charney said he called Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal advocacy organization that represents gay clients on civil-rights-related issues, to aid in his case.

“I called the hotline, spoke to the representative who answered, and was told I would hear back from them,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Days later they returned my call and informed me that they were not interested in pursuing my matter against S&C.”

(A representative at Lambda contacted by The Observer said it does not comment on these matters.)

The Lambda diss is the juiciest tidbit. But the NYO piece contains a few other highlights, which we reprint after the jump.

Are you a gay law student or lawyer? Are you thinking about possibly working at the New York powerhouse law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell?

Before you apply to S&C, you might want to first check out this complaint, filed today in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court, despite the misleading name).

Allegations of discrimination against gays AND Canadians (there’s a difference); a headshot of the handsome plaintiff; and a link to the full complaint. All this and more awaits you, after the jump.