On 17 January, the New York Times ran this story about Aaron Charney, an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. The big news? Charney did something that few (attorneys) dare do — he filed suit against his employer. The reason? According to the suit, senior partners at the firm harassed Charney because he’s homosexual.

The latest news is that Sullivan & Cromwell is doing what law firms always do in such rare situations. It’s firing back with a countersuit.

If you want to keep up on this, tune into Above the Law, which says it intends to cover this “like nobody’s business.” I’m sure it will. I’m not going to be covering it. I simply can’t afford to.*

I just want to note a few things about this messy affair before I hang up.

1. In his suit, Charney claims that “S & C’s anti-discrimination policy exists only as a matter of form, the policy is effectively unenforceable against S & C partners, and coming forward to report discrimination at S & C results in retaliation.”

2. According to Charney, S & C’s conduct “violates the Statement of Diversity Principles of the Association of hte Bar of the City of New York, to which S & C is a signatory.”

3. In its countersuit, S & C claims that Charney’s charges are no more than “a malicious public relations campaign, the evident purpose of which has been to embarass and denigrate S & C.”

____________
What I find most intriguing about this messy affair is the jeopardy that Charney has put his career in. Whether or not his charges are true, and whether he prevails in court or not, if he wants to continue practicing law, then his options are few. He could be a public defender, or he could work for some non-profit corporation; or he could start his own firm. Yes! He could start a firm that specializes in fighting discrimination against homosexuals. He could be seen as a hero for a cause. But he’ll never work for a big law firm ever again. That’s for sure.

____________
* I began this blog with this straightforward question: where’s the evidence for the claim made by so many law firms that a diverse group is smarter and more creative than a uniform group?

It turns out that — as best I can tell — the claim is bogus, and the firms that make it know it. But their most important clients want to hear it, and so it gets repeated, over and over.

Also bogus is the claim made by so many firms that they welcome diversity of thought. They certainly don’t.

I make my bread by providing writing and editing services to law firms, among others. But most big law firms, experience tells me, are quite averse to the diversity of thought they say they so want. In other words, I lost another good opportunity because of this blog.

It’s a financial calculation. If this blog is costing me business, well then . . . I just can’t afford to maintain it.

____________
BTW: I’ve started a new blog. It’s about law firm publishing, it’s called Set in Style, and it’s not very controversial.