DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction INTRODUCTION: In 1995, Harvard Law students Suzanne Nossel and Elizabeth Westfall designed a project aimed at discovering what it was like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. Gathering funds from Harvard faculty members and alumni, they mailed out the first Presumed Equal survey to women at 57 law firms across the country. Over 600 female attorneys responded to the survey and Suzanne and Elizabeth compiled the responses into the first edition of Presumed Equal, which sold over 1,000 copies. The interest generated by law firms and survey participants, as well as media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and National Public Radio, led to the publication of the second edition of Presumed Equal in 1998. The second edition surveyed 77 law firms and garnered nearly 1,225 responses. The impact of the first two editions of Presumed Equal was nothing short of revolutionary. Not only did the Presumed Equal project call attention to general trends in disparate treatment that many women experienced at their various law firms, but also it highlighted specific weaknesses that plagued particular firms. Many law firms used Presumed Equal as a source to learn about their own deficiencies and also turned to the book as a guide as to how to remedy them. A number of firms responded by instituting Women’s Initiatives or Diversity Committees focused on recruitment, retention, and promotion of female attorneys. The book also rapidly became an invaluable resource for law students seeking candid observations about a particular firm’s culture and advice about how to succeed in the profession. Women were able to harvest information and insights that they might not receive from probing interviewers or poring over promotional materials. The book facilitated an honest discourse between women attorneys and attorneys-to- be, allowing the former to counsel the latter on which firm environments would be conducive to achieving their personal goals, whether it be making partner, finding a mentor, or balancing firm life with outside endeavors. No one had ever compiled such frank, firsthand accounts on such a wide array of top law firms. We aspire to build upon the successes of the previous editions by striving to provide open, honest information about women’s experiences at top law firms. We mined nearly 4,000 responses from over 150 offices, using the responses both to distill some general professional trends as well as to disseminate stories that capture personal experiences. We have allowed our respondents to speak in their own words, choosing excerpts that poignantly express the sentiments of a significant number of responses. Most often, our respondents were not unanimous in their assessments of a firm. Rather than attempt to impose a uniform gloss, we have highlighted the differences in views and presented thoughts from each perspective. We summarize or edit responses only when necessary to protect a respondent’s identity. In this neutral, anonymous environment, our respondents were able to offer sincere praise and level specific criticisms in a way that they are not at liberty to do during an initial interview or callback visit. By providing a forum for this commentary, we hope to assist employment candidates in obtaining thoughtful, candid information about their prospective employers that is unavailable anywhere else. An equally important goal for this third edition is to continue to facilitate a conversation between law students, practicing attorneys, and law firm leaders about issues that are important to women. We believe that projects like Presumed Equal can instigate positive change. Many women who responded to our survey previously participated in past editions of Presumed Equal. For these women in particular, the survey allowed them to contemplate the progresses and pitfalls of their particular firm’s diversity initiatives. It is gratifying for us to note that even prior to print, this project has already generated a substantial amount of personal reflection and interpersonal dialogue; hundreds of women have contacted us to offer personal stories, express their excitement about the project, or ask questions about methodology. Hopefully the book itself similarly serves as a source of enthusiasm and empowerment for our readers, sparking increased informed discussion of women’s issues. After all, most of the concerns that prompted Suzanne and Elizabeth to write Presumed Equal are just as relevant today as they were 10 years ago. As leaders of the Women’s Law Association and board members of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, we often ask our members what kind of programming they would like these groups to offer. In addition to expressing interest in academic “tip” sessions and networking opportunities, members repeatedly ask for events focused on exploring ways women can ensure success in the law firm environment. They want to know if they will be treated on par with their male colleagues, receiving comparable assignments and mentorship opportunities. They want to know the feasibility of raising children while climbing the partnership ladder. They want to know whether working part-time, because of familial demands or the desire to pursue other interests, is a real option for those wishing to retain rewarding professional careers. While these are certainly not the only issues that concern female law students—nor are they issues that concern only female law students—there is a paucity of information available to those women especially interested in learning more about these aspects of life at a law firm. Unfortunately, even the most assertive law students may find themselves silenced in their inquiries on these gender-charged topics. Generally, we were told in school not to ask pointed questions at the initial screening interview, but to wait until we had a callback or offer for summer employment in hand. However, learning about such important information in the final stages of one’s job search process is less than ideal. Moreover, many women are not comfortable asking these questions at any stage as it can undermine the perceived goal of the interview process: getting a job. Interviewees try to present themselves as motivated, hardworking, enthusiastic potential employees interested in a long-term legal career. Asking questions about the availability of flexible work arrangements, maternity leave, and the impact of billable hours requirements on life outside the firm are thought to rebut assertions that one will be a highly-motivated, diligent, and enthusiastic employee. Many women fear being pigeonholed as temporary employees destined for maternity leave or the “mommy track” simply for voicing such an inquiry. Besides, at no stage in the process does law firm interviewing foster an open and honest environment where female law students can get answers to these tough questions about women’s advancement and retention, even if they should dare to ask. Interviewers may be hesitant to “out” any negative qualities about a firm during an interview, as the main goal at that stage of the process is recruitment. Partners in particular benefit from successfully recruiting a top student and may not want to discourage a promising candidate from entering the firm, even if the firm would not ideally suit the candidate’s needs. Additionally, the firm is likely to have applicants interview with satisfied members of the firm, who may genuinely have found the firm to be well-suited to their own needs, and thus might not be well-versed on the areas where the firm needs improvement. To reiterate, our primary goal in writing and publishing the third edition of Presumed Equal is to disseminate candid and accurate information about what it is like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. We believe our 4,000 respondents provide this unique insight. While the response to this endeavor has been overwhelmingly positive, it is worthwhile to note that some did criticize the underlying premise of the book. For example, a few respondents wondered why our survey focused solely on women, when work, family, and diversity concerns apply to both men and women. We agree with the premise of this critique. However, we also recognize that women still disproportionately perform most child-rearing and homemaking duties in our society, causing them to disproportionately feel the burdens of work-life balance issues. Moreover, we stress that despite the gendered focus, our findings should still be of value to men who struggle with work and family conflict, as well as the other issues addressed in the survey. Indeed, many of our male classmates have expressed as much interest in the findings as our female peers. Ultimately, the way a firm treats all of its employees says much about the quality of the firm, and we hope that this book proves useful to all students seeking to understand a particular firm. That said, other survey respondents resented our questions about work and family because they believed it minimized the reality that women (and men) without families also suffer intrusions on their personal lives. We do not intend to imply—nor do we personally believe—that women with families are the only ones who struggle with work-life balance dilemmas. Rather, we hope to provide those women who already have families, or those interested in having children while working, insight as to how various firms have responded to family needs. Additionally, women with interests unrelated to child-rearing should still find the information valuable because it necessarily reflects a firm’s response to outside demands on an attorney’s time and its general outlook on the challenge of retaining women in the legal profession. Nevertheless, at least one woman deemed gender in the workplace a non-issue, declaring that “as long as women continue to answer surveys and engage in activities because they are women and not solely because they are lawyers, disparity will continue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City Law Department Launch Innovative Corporate / Public Service Pro Bono Initiative
    NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL Press Release Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel Web: nyc.gov/html/law/home.html For Immediate Release MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG AND NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT LAUNCH INNOVATIVE CORPORATE / PUBLIC SERVICE PRO BONO INITIATIVE MAYOR ACKNOWLEDGES PARTICIPATING FIRMS AND FIRMS THAT AIDED CORPORATION COUNSEL’S OFFICE AFTER SEPT. 11 WITH CITY HALL ENGAGEMENT Contact: Kate O’Brien Ahlers, Communications Director, (212) 788-0400, [email protected] New York, May 17, 2002 -- The New York City Law Department has joined with more than 30 leading law firms to form a unique public service initiative, the “Corporation Counsel Public Service Program,” that embraces Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s corporate/public service ideal while tackling the need for innovative solutions to the City’s budget crisis. The Mayor acknowledged firms participating in this program -- along with firms that aided the Corporation Counsel’s office after Sept. 11 -- with a City Hall engagement this morning. At the event, Chadbourne & Parke was honored for providing housing to over 100 City lawyers and staff for almost eight months, with Mayor Bloomberg proclaiming it “Chadbourne and Parke Day.” The Mayor also acknowledged several other law firms for the assistance they provided to the Corporation Counsel’s office after Sept. 11. Mayor Bloomberg’s engagement highlighted the two distinct elements of recent legal public service assistance offered to the New York City Law Department. The first initiative, the Corporation Counsel Public Service Program, is enabling New York City to better manage its mounting legal caseload while offering attorneys at major law firms a unique chance to participate in public service opportunities and bolster their legal and trial experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Beazley Brief Update Risk Management Insights for Law Firms from Beazley
    Beazley Brief Update Risk management insights for law firms from Beazley Finishing Some “Unfinished Business”— California And In the February 2012 and July 2012 issues of the Beazley Brief, we reported on how the “unfinished business” doctrine New York Courts Reject - based on the California Court of Appeals decision in Jewel v. Boxer (156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984) - had spawned a rash of “Unfinished Business” Claims suits by dissolving law firms against departing partners and their new firms for taking the old firm’s “unfinished business,” Involving Dissolved Law Firms or pending client matters, with them to their new firms. By Kevin S. Rosen, Christopher Chorba, and Peter Bach-y-Rita Fortunately, the tide has begun to turn against this troubling - Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP trend. Recent decisions by courts in California and New York have determined that dissolved law firms do not have a One of the most troubling trends in recent years has been the property interest in pending hourly unfinished business rise in trustee litigation following the dissolution of several matters. This Beazley Brief Update addresses these major international law firms. Bankruptcy trustees have significant rulings. brought claims to recover profits on “unfinished business” on behalf of defunct firms, asserting an entitlement to fees We are again pleased that Gibson Dunn & Crutcher partners earned on matters handled by new firms that hired partners of Kevin S. Rosen and Christopher Chorba and associate Peter the dissolved firm. In these cases, trustees and debtors of the Bach-y-Rita have graciously agreed to prepare this update. dissolved firms have sued both the former partners and their Kevin is in the firm’s Los Angeles office and chair of the firm’s new firms, relying on the California Court of Appeal decision Law Firm Defense Practice Group.
    [Show full text]
  • When Law Firms Go Bankrupt — What Secured Lenders Can Learn from the Dewey Bankruptcy
    PLACE PDF @ 88% REPRINTED FROM THE NOV/DEC 2012 ISSUE, VOL. 10, NO. 8 BANKRUPTCY UPDATE When Law Firms Go Bankrupt — What Secured Lenders Can Learn From the Dewey Bankruptcy BY JEFFREY A. WURST, ESQ When law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf filed for Chapter 11 protection, it was obligated to its secured creditors, among many others, led by JP Morgan on a $75 million line of credit facility. Jeffrey Wurst explains what led to Dewey’s collapse and offers advice regarding key indicators of a potential creditor’s fiscal irresponsibility. ictims of bankruptcy come in many forms. Dewey filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy They include the debtors themselves, as well Court for the Southern District of New York. Many theo- V as their secured and unsecured creditors. When ries abound as to the causes of Dewey’s collapse, but, law firms fall into bankruptcy, the secured lenders are essentially, the crux appears to be that Dewey guaran- often among the hardest hit. Typically, these secured teed an unsustainable amount of compensation to both lenders take security interests in all assets of the law newly acquired and longstanding partners. Hoping to firm when funding operations. The assets with the generate enormous fees off these highly compensated most value tend to be the cash and cash equivalents partners, Dewey subsequently took on debt to fund the and the accounts receivable. The problem with many failing business. However, the economic impact of the recent law firm bankruptcies is that cash on hand is recession forced Dewey to consolidate its debt. Further JEFFREY A.
    [Show full text]
  • Coudert Brothers
    north america Coudert Brothers LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, PALO ALTO, SAN FRANCISCO, WASHINGTON llp europe ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANTWERP, BERLIN, BRUSSELS, FRANKFURT, GHENT, LONDON, MILAN, MOSCOW, MUNICH, PARIS, 1114 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS ROME, STOCKHOLM, NEW YORK, NY 10036-7703 ST. PETERSBURG TEL: (212) 626-4400 asia/pacific FAX: (212) 626-4120 ALMATY, BANGKOK, BEIJING, HONG KONG, JAKARTA, SINGAPORE, WWW.COUDERT.COM SYDNEY, TOKYO [email protected] associated offices BUDAPEST, MEXICO CITY, PRAGUE, SHANGHAI September 15, 2004 Jonathan A. Katz, Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20549-0609 [email protected] Re: Registration Under the Advisers Act of Certain Hedge Fund Advisers -- Proposed Rule S7-30-04 Dear Mr. Katz: We represent a wide range of managers and sponsors of investment funds, including both investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and private investment funds operating under the exemption under either Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, and including substantial numbers of investment advisers based both within and outside the United States. We also represent a number of insurance companies, pension funds and other sophisticated investors, both U.S. and non-U.S., that invest in private investment funds. As a general preliminary comment, we are very concerned that the additional administrative and compliance burdens and costs imposed upon private fund managers required to register under the proposed new rule will,
    [Show full text]
  • The Jewish Law Firm: Past and Present
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship University of Denver Sturm College of Law 2014 The Jewish Law Firm: Past and Present Eli Wald Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/law_facpub Part of the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation HLS Center on the Legal Profession Research Paper No. 2015-9 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. The Jewish Law Firm: Past and Present Publication Statement Copyright held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance. This paper is available at Digital Commons @ DU: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/law_facpub/28 THE JEWISH LAW FIRM: PAST AND PRESENT Eli Wald1 I. Introduction The rise and growth of large Jewish law firms in New York City during the second half of the twentieth century is nothing short of an astounding success story. 2 As late as 1950, there was not a single large Jewish law firm in town. By the mid-1960s, six of the largest twenty law firms were Jewish, and by 1980, four of the largest ten law firms were Jewish firms.3 Moreover, the accomplishment of these Jewish firms is especially striking because, while the traditional large White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (“WASP”) law firms also grew at a fast rate during this period, the Jewish firms grew twice as fast, and they did so in spite of explicit discrimination.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine Dan
    The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine 2015 Volume VII No. 26 The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine Dan Teplin, J.D. Candidate 2015 Cite as: The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine, 7 ST. JOHN’S BANKR. RESEARCH LIBR. NO. 26 (2015). Introduction It is no secret that the legal industry has experience financial difficulty following the great recession. Many law firms have been less profitable, and in some extreme circumstances, have filed for bankruptcy. The worlds largest law firms are of no exception to this recent phenomenon. The collapses of the mega-firms Dewey & LeBoeuf,1 Coudert Brothers LLP,2 Heller Ehrman LLP,3 Howrey LLP,4 Thacher Proffitt & Wood LLP,5 and Thelen LLP6 are prime examples. Since most law firms, especially large firms, do not reorganize in bankruptcy, a bankruptcy trustee will often be appointed to administer the firm’s estate. In order to maximize 1 The End of an Era: Why Dewey & LeBoeuf Went Under, FORTUNE (May 29, 2012) http://fortune.com/2012/05/29/the-end-of-an-era-why-dewey-leboeuf-went-under/. 2 Jones Day Prevails in Coudert Brothers “Unfinished Business” case in unanimous New York Court of Appeals Ruling, (July 2014) http://www.jonesday.com/jones-day-prevails-in-coudert-brothers-unfinished-business-case-in- unanimous-new-york-court-of-appeals-ruling/. 3 Recession Batters Law Firms, Triggering Layoffs, Closings, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Jan. 26, 2009) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123292954232713979. 4 Why Howrey Law Firm Could Not Hold It Together, THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Firm Turnarounds
    Law Firm Turnarounds By William F. Brennan Dewey & LeBoeuf, the 20th largest law firm in the country Overly rich benefits provided to former partners via an according to the 2012 NLJ 250, has declared bankruptcy unfunded partner withdrawal entitlement; and is in the process of dissolving. According to the firm’s Compensation systems not perceived as equitable or management, in 2011 it had more than $900 million in pay levels significantly below market; revenues with average profits per equity partner of about $1.8 million. The Am Law Daily reported that those Loss of confidence in firm Leadership/Management; statistics were substantially overstated and had to be Inattention to client/practice concentrations; restated to $782 million in revenue and $1.04 million in average profits per equity partner, still impressive statistics Failure to react to market shifts; for a law firm. (Dewey says that the former numbers were Reliance on billing rate increases at twice the rate of and are accurate and are due to methodological inflation as primary means to increased profits. differences.) How could such a prominent law firm end up in such a mess? The occurrence of one of these problems, if corrected If Dewey’s situation is consistent with other law firm quickly, is unlikely to cause a law firm to fail, but the financial crises, it fell victim to a series of different issues simultaneous convergence of two or three, or an inability to that individually might have been manageable, but together adjust quickly, can spell doom for a law firm – a business proved to be insurmountable.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Law Firm Bankruptcies and Proposals for Reform Edward S
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 55 | Number 3 Article 1 10-7-2015 Lessons from Law Firm Bankruptcies and Proposals for Reform Edward S. Adams Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Edward S. Adams, Lessons from Law Firm Bankruptcies and Proposals for Reform, 55 Santa Clara L. Rev. 507 (2015). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LESSONS FROM LAW FIRM BANKRUPTCIES AND PROPOSALS FOR REFORM Edward S. Adams* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................... 508 I.History of Law Firm Bankruptcies ............................. 510 A. Finley Kumble ................................................ 511 B. Coudert Brothers ............................................ 514 C. Thelen ............................................................. 517 D. Heller Ehrman ................................................ 519 E. Dewey & LeBoeuf ........................................... 521 1. The Rise and Fall of Dewey ...................... 522 2. Reasons for Dewey’s Bankruptcy ............. 528 II.Solutions to Law Firm Bankruptcies ......................... 530 A. Introduction ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Law Firms Collapse
    Why Law Firms Collapse John Morley1 Law firms don’t just go bankrupt—they collapse. Like Dewey & LeBoeuf, Heller Ehrman, and Bingham McCutchen, law firms often go from apparent health to liquidation in a matter of months or even days. Almost no large law firm has ever managed to reorganize its debts in bankruptcy and survive. This pattern is puzzling, because it has no parallel among ordinary businesses. Many businesses go through long periods of financial distress and many even file for bankruptcy. But almost none collapse with the extraordinary force and finality of law firms. Why? I argue that law firms are fragile because they are owned by their partners, rather than by investors. Partner ownership creates the conditions for a spiraling cycle of withdrawals that resembles a run on the bank. As the owners of the business, the partners of a law firm are the ones who suffer declines in profits and who have to disgorge their compensation in the event the firm becomes insolvent. So if one partner leaves and damages the firm, it is the remaining partners who bear the loss. Each partner’s departure thus has the potential to worsen conditions for those who remain, meaning that as each partner departs, the others become more likely to leave as well, eventually producing an accelerating race for the exists bank. This kind of spiraling withdrawal is sometimes thought to be an unavoidable consequence of financial distress. But if law firms were not owned by their partners, this would not happen. Indeed, the only large law firm in the history of the common law world that has ever survived a prolonged insolvency is also one of the only large law firms that has ever been owned by investors.
    [Show full text]
  • Globalization and the U.S. Market in Legal Services: Shifting Identities
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2000 Globalization and the U.S. Market in Legal Services: Shifting Identities Carole Silver Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Silver, Carole, "Globalization and the U.S. Market in Legal Services: Shifting Identities" (2000). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 409. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/409 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GLOBALIZATION AND THE U.S. MARKET IN LEGAL SERVICES-SHIFTING IDENTITIES CAROLE SILVER* I. INTRODUCTION The international activities of U.S. lawyers are increasingly important and multiplying as their law firms search for new ways to distinguish themselves from their competitors, and these activities have attracted the attention of the popular, business, and legal press. Law firm mergers spanning national borders are announced in the headlines of national newspapers,' and U.S. lawyers are characterized as "egging on" their European clients in their foreign hostile takeover activities.2 U.S. law firms also are branching out into foreign law specialties by hiring more foreign lawyers for their foreign offices.3 While once it was sufficient to be a national law firm, today's elite firms stress their internationalism.4 This article examines the interna- tional activities of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X : in Re: : : Chapter 11 COUDERT BROTHERS LLP, : : Case No
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X : In re: : : Chapter 11 COUDERT BROTHERS LLP, : : Case No. 06-12226 (RDD) Debtor. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X : DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., : Adv. Pro. No. 08-01467 (RDD) in its capacity as Plan Administrator for : Coudert Brothers LLP, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JAMES B. VARANESE, : : : Defendant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X HONORABLE ROBERT D. DRAIN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York hereby files these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for review by the District Court of the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033, and Local Bankruptcy Rule 9033-1, for entry of a final order confirming an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 and entry of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure made applicable hereto by Bankruptcy Rule 7055 and Local Rule 7055-2. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT I. Parties Plaintiff Development Specialists, Inc., in its capacity as Plan Administrator of Coudert Brothers, LLP (the “Plan Administrator”), has moved this Court to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 in the above-captioned adversary proceeding. Coudert Brothers, LLP (“Coudert” or the “Debtor”) was an international law firm headquartered in New York and organized as a New York limited liability partnership as of October 1, 2001. Defendant James B. Varanese (“Varanese”) was a partner in the Debtor (Declaration of John G. McCarthy, dated September 30, 2016, ¶¶2, 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Crunch and Prospects for 2014 a US Law
    Lessons Learned From the Credit Crunch and Prospects for 2014 - A U.S. Law Firm Perspective Københavns Advokatforening App,ril 29, 2014 Uri Doron, Jenner & Block Uri Doron, Partner 2 Who am I? Why am I here? • M&A Partner at Jenner & Block’s New York Office • My practice focuses on representing Scandinavian clients in the U. S. • I have been “fortunate” enough to experience some of the market trends personally 3 IifihlldbI was an associate at a firm that collapsed because its partners became too greedy 4 I was a partner at a firm that tried the strategy of “Global Domination” by merging with several firms and open ing 28 o ffices aroun d the wor ld 5 AdAnd now I am a partner at a USlU.S. law firm t hat is trying to distinguish itself not by the numbers, but by its excellence and quality (quite a unique approach nowadays…) 6 What I am Trying to Avoid… 7 What I Will Start With… 8 Several Firms Have Collapsed • There have been several collapses of large US firms in the past decade: – Brobeck, Phleger, & Harrison (2003) – Coudert Brothers LLP (2006) – Jenkens & Gilchrist (2007) – Thelen LLP (2008) – Heller Ehrman LLP (2008) – Dreier LLP (2008) – Howrey LLP (2011) – Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (2012) 9 The Lessons Learned from the Collapse of Dewey & LeBoeuf 10 Why Should We Focus on the Dewey Story? • The most “spectacular” law firm failure in the U.S. (and there were several) • The mistakes are indicative of the changes in the U. S. legal industry and many U.
    [Show full text]