If Aaron Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell ever gets turned into a movie, there will be a little epilogue at the end, to inform viewers of the fates of the dramatis personae. Here is our version of it.

Aaron Charney is believed to be happy, spending time with friends, and presumably enjoying those settlement proceeds. No word yet on his future employer (assuming he returns to the work force). Meanwhile, his erstwhile nemesis, partner Eric Krautheimer, passed the California bar and moved out to Los Angeles. He still works for S&C, but now gets to lead more of his own deals.

And what about Gera Grinberg, the former S&C associate who would have been a key witness in the case, who was joined at the hip -- professionally, but not personally -- with Aaron Charney? We've learned two pieces of good news about him:

First, he has landed himself a new job. We understand that he is now the general counsel to a small real estate development company.

Second, on the personal front, here's some news that will put to rest any and all the rumors that he might be gay. Gera Grinberg is engaged (to a woman). His fiancee is a former associate at Kirkland & Ellis in New York, now working in-house for a large hotel company.

Congratulations and best wishes to Gera Grinberg and the future Mrs. Grinberg!

P.S. We still don't know whether he has resolved any of his outstanding issues with S&C. But considering how well Grinberg's life is going right now, both professionally and personally, maybe he should just let bygones be bygones?

Before Thanksgiving, we put up an open thread devoted to discussion of the California bar exam. We're surprised that nobody mentioned this interesting tidbit of news (which we learned about from a tipster via email):

High-powered Sullivan & Cromwell partner Eric Krautheimer, the alleged tormentor of gay associate Aaron Charney, took and passed the July 2007 California bar exam.

Congratulations, Mr. Krautheimer!

Back in April, at the height of the Aaron Charney controversy, it was rumored that Krautheimer was going to be transferred to S&C's Los Angeles office. Some speculated that it was to remove him from the New York office, where Brokeback Lawfirm all went down. But if Krautheimer's move to the West Coast is still going forward, despite the settlement of the Charney lawsuit, we're guessing Krautheimer has his own personal reasons for wanting to move to L.A.

On our earlier post about the move rumors, a commenter called S&C LA wrote: "No truth to this at all. Sorry, this rumor is just that and nothing more." Presumably this commenter thinks that Eric Krautheimer -- a leading M&A lawyer, and a partner making millions of dollars a year, at one of the nation's top corporate law firms -- took California's three-day bar exam just for fun.

It must have been strange for a veteran lawyer, almost 15 years out of law school, to be taking the bar next to newly minted law school graduates -- including 18-year-old Kathleen Holtz. But then again, former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan did it -- twice.

On the S&C website, Eric Krautheimer is still listed as based in New York. But expect to see him in L.A. sometime soon, now that he's a member of the California bar.

P.S. On the S&C website, the link to Eric Krautheimer's bio was moved from here to here. Was the firm trying to render all of ATL's links to his bio obsolete? If so, nice try -- but nothing that a site-wide "Find and Replace" can't fix.

July 2007 California Bar Examination Pass List [State Bar of California]

Earlier: Brokeback Lawfirm: Is Eric Krautheimer Headed for Hollywood?

We've been having a lot of fun with Non-Top-Tier Law School Week here at ATL. So we're extending it, to include all of next week. As we mentioned before, if you have a story idea that fits under this theme, please email us.

As part of this special celebration, each day we're going to highlight a successful non-top-tier law school graduate, and honor this person as our Non-Top-Tier Law School Graduate of the Day.

Here is today's winner:

Name: Eric M. Krautheimer

Law School: Western New England College School of Law, 1993

Current Position: Partner, Mergers & Acquisitions, Sullivan & Cromwell

Why He's Our Winner: Eric Krautheimer is a partner at S&C, one of the world's most prestigious and profitable law firms. In 2006, profits per partner at S&C clocked in at $2.82 million. Innumerable Harvard-Yale-Stanford grads would KILL to be in his shoes.

The best part of his job: (allegedly) ordering a prissy little Columbia boy to "bend over" and take it (where "it" = a corporate document).

Talk about living the non-top-tier dream!

This is completely unverified -- nothing more than total rumor. We're in the process of following up. But we thought we'd toss it out there, to see if any of you can confirm (or deny).

This is what we've heard, from a little bird:

"Eric Krautheimer is probably going to be transferred to Sullivan & Cromwell's L.A. office."

Because Los Angeles has such different views on gay issues than New York. And out on the distant West Coast, still reachable only by Pony Express, nobody will have heard of this Aaron Charney guy.

As noted, this is UNCONFIRMED. We've left messages with Eric Krautheimer, S&C chairman H. Rodgin Cohen, and a firm spokesperson. We haven't heard back from any of them. But if and when we do, you'll be the first to know.

Do you have inside information about the truth (or lack thereof) of this item? If so, please email us (subject line: "Eric Krautheimer"). Thanks.

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

We previously solicited tips about Sullivan & Cromwell M&A partner Eric Krautheimer, of Aaron Charney v. S&C fame. Alas, we didn't get much.

Until now. Someone who knows Eric Krautheimer reasonably well has come forward with some helpful information, which sheds some light upon this powerful partner, and places his alleged conduct in context.

Check it out, after the jump.

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.

We've now finished reading Robert Kolker's interesting and highly detailed New York Magazine article about Aaron Charney (a piece that we've been anticipating for weeks). And we do have a few thoughts on it -- besides admiration for Ted Partin's elegant, black-and-white headshot of a trim-but-borderline-emaciated Aaron Charney, at right.

On the whole, the piece is well-researched and thoughtful. It doesn't contain THAT much new information for people who have been following this case as slavishly as most ATL readers have. But it's well-written and engaging, a good read.

Also, it's commendably balanced. In your reactions to it, some have you attacked it as pro-S&C, while others have criticized it as pro-Charney. This strikes us as evidence of the article's evenhanded nature. You can view it as either pro-S&C or pro-Charney, depending upon your point of view and what you choose to focus on within the piece.

More detailed thoughts, after the jump.

What's more thoroughly trashed: Aaron Charney's Biglaw career, or his computer hard drive? You be the judge.

Patricia Hurtado and Lindsay Fortado, of Bloomberg News, have filed an excellent report about yesterday's court proceedings in the litigation between Aaron Charney and his erstwhile employer, Sullivan & Cromwell. Here's an excerpt:

A former Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer who destroyed his home computer's hard drive after being sued by the law firm must be questioned under oath about how and when he did it, a New York judge said.

The judge, Bernard Fried, ruled today after being told Aaron Charney, the lawyer, had computer professionals wipe the computer's memory clean, took it home, smashed it with a hammer and threw it away. Charney's attorney Michael Kennedy described the destruction of the computer's hard drive to the judge.

Thanks to our time in the discovery salt mines, we know that computer forensic experts can pull off all sorts of miracles when it comes to data recovery. But in our non-expert opinion, it sounds like the Charney hard drive is history.

In this case, it's not a matter of recovering a purportedly "deleted" file that still resides somewhere within the computer's memory. Thanks to the hammer smashing and trashing, what's needed here is a physical miracle, of the water-into-wine variety.

Another juicy tidbit from the Bloomberg News report: Charney was told by S&C, during settlement discussions, that they would "crush him like a bug" -- delicious!!!

But bug-crushing is a tad cliched. Couldn't the S&C lawyers have been more creative? Maybe they could have told Charney, "We will shred you into little bits, like a redlined draft merger agreement that has been superseded by a later version."

More from Hurtado and Fortado -- hey, we like the ring of that -- after the jump.

Update (12:05 PM): Please note that we've appended a few additions and corrections to this post since it was originally published.

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.

As we mentioned earlier today, word on the street is that Sullivan & Cromwell has hired veteran employment litigator Zachary Fasman (at right), chair of the employment law practice in the New York office of Paul Hastings, to represent S&C in connection with Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

That rumor has now been confirmed. We emailed Zach Fasman for comment, and we received this response:

David:

I can confirm that I have been retained by Sullivan & Cromwell in this matter. I cannot provide any further comment.

Thanks.

- Zach Fasman

It will therefore fall to Mr. Fasman, and his associate minions, to quiz Eric Krautheimer on his bathroom reading habits. Fun stuff.

P.S. Thanks for all of your astute and amusing comments about Gera Grinberg's lawyers at Gallion & Spielvogel -- whose website is not to be missed.

Zachary D. Fasman [Paul Hastings]

Earlier: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Now Everybody Gets To Bend Over!
Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

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.

Our eyes glaze over when we see, in The American Lawyer or over at NYLawyer.com, those laundry lists of lawyers who worked on various transactions. Usually we don't bother reading them.

But several of you drew our attention to this interesting announcement:

Sullivan, Kaye Scholer Advise Purchase Of Kodak Medical Imaging Business [NYLawyer.com]

In case you haven't registered for NYLawyer.com -- yeah, registering for free sites is a bitch -- we reprint the announcement, in full, after the jump.

The lawsuit filed by an openly gay associate against his prestigious law firm, Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, has been picked up by the mainstream media -- big-time.

We expect that, after this rash of articles, the MSM will move on from this story. Rest assured, dear reader, that ATL will not.

We intend to cover the crap out of this case. If you have any information whatsoever about Aaron Charney, Sullivan & Cromwell's treatment of gay lawyers, or related subjects, please email us. No detail is too small to escape our interest. If you shared your apple juice with Aaron Charney in kindergarten, we want to hear about it.

Okay. We have carefully read this morning's coverage of the lawsuit by the New York Times, the New York Law Journal, and the Times of London -- so you don't have to. We've located the highlights, the juiciest details, and the money quotes.

The most notable news, as reported in the NYT and the NYLJ, is that Charney has been barred from the Sullivan & Cromwell offices while an internal investigation is underway. Considering the weirdness and tension that would have resulted otherwise, both Charney and the S&C partners are probably happy about his absence.

Excerpts and links to the full articles, after the jump (i.e., click on the "Continue reading" link below).

Here's a trio of links from around the blogosphere concerning everyone's favorite lawsuit, Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:

1. White Shoe Lawyers Probably Didn't Like 'Philadelphia' Either [Gawker]

2. Associate Hits Major NYC Law Firm with Gay Discrimination Suit [Towleroad]

3. S&C Associate Files Complaint; S&C Chairman Fires Back [WSJ Law Blog]

And here's an excerpt from the Charney complaint that was highlighted in the Gawker post, which we failed to mention earlier (but should have, 'cause it's really good):

ICK. But if you're (masochistically) trying to picture this scene, we've helpfully provided photographs for you of Eric Krautheimer (inset left) and Aaron Charney (inset right). Enjoy.

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