Which firm recently found out that one of its partners was involved in a sexist email scandal, and is doing absolutely nothing about it?

21 May 2014 at 11:51 AM

Biglaw, Email Scandals, Gender, Partner Issues, Rudeness, Sexism, Sports, Women's Issues

Biglaw Partner Avoids Punishment For Participation In Lewd, Crude, Sexist Email Scandal

By Staci Zaretsky

‘Have spent all day fending Edna off my graphite shaft.’

We already knew that Biglaw firms aren’t exactly the most friendly places for women. We already knew that some male lawyers are still quite miffed that women invaded their good old boys’ clubs. What we didn’t know was that some Biglaw firms would go so far as to essentially sign off on their partners’ extremely sexist views.
Which firm recently found out that one of its partners was involved in a sexist email scandal, and is doing absolutely nothing about it?

The firm in question is DLA Piper, which may want to consider opening a DLA NO MA’AM outpost. Earlier this month, one of the firm’s sports law partners in the London office was caught exchanging incredibly lewd, crude, and sexist emails with one of his clients, Richard ­Scudamore of the U.K. Premier League.
The Sunday Mirror first covered the story on May 10, without naming the lawyer involved. A little more than one week later, that lawyer has been named thanks to reporters over at the Am Law Daily. Say hello to Nicholas West, whose DLA Piper bio has been completely wiped clean of his credentials.
Here’s one of West’s darling email exchanges with Scudamore, leaked by the Sunday Mirror:

Nicholas West

In one crude email exchange the lawyer bragged to ­Scudamore: “Have spent all day fending [Premier League planning and projects director Peta Bistany, aka “Edna”] off my graphite shaft. She is terribly relentless isn’t she?!”
The football chief and father of five who lives with his wife Catherine in a £1.8million home in Cirencester, Glos, replied: “Terribly! Must keep her off your shaft… graphite, sausage meat or flimsy sponge.” Yesterday a Premier League source said the pair claim to have been referring to golf clubs. The lawyer also told Scudamore to “save the cash in case you find some gash”.

DLA Piper launched an inquisition against West after catching wind of his involvement in this extravaganza of crude comments, but ultimately decided to do nothing. Here’s more information from Am Law Daily:

A DLA spokesman told [said] that while the firm had determined that West’s actions represented “a failure to meet the high professional standards in which we take pride,” no further action will be taken.
“We have accepted Mr. West’s assurances that these emails are not reflective of his beliefs and values and that there will be no recurrence of this behavior,” the firm said in a statement.
West released a statement of his own in which he “sincerely apologize[d]” for his actions and admitted that he had “let myself, my firm and its clients down.”
“I have an obligation to uphold the highest professional standards and I give my assurance that this will be the case going forward,” he added.

Here’s what seems to be a more accurate translation of West’s statement: “I let myself, my firm, and its clients down by getting caught. I have an obligation to uphold the highest professional standards, and because I am a lad with true honor, I give my assurance that this will be the case going forward because I won’t be so daft as to put how I really feel down in writing ever again. This is so f’ckn easy! Go United!”
It’s good to know one of the top law firms on the planet doesn’t want to discipline its partners for engaging in sexist behavior — but then again, perhaps DLA Piper feels that Nicholas West’s own embarrassment is good enough. Either way, this can’t be good for public (or pubic, amirite Nick?!) relations.
DLA Clears Partner Caught Up in Sexist Email Furor [Am Law Daily]
England football supremo Richard Scudamore made sexist slurs in a string of emails to soccer pals
[Sunday Mirror]

31 Comments

• Print

Topics

Biglaw, Email, Email Scandals, Emails, Gender, Nicholas West, Partner Issues, Partners With Issues, Peta Bistany, Rudeness, Sexism, Sports, Sports Law, Women's Issues

21 Jan 2014 at 1:23 PM

Email Scandals, Judge of the Day, Racism

Judge Who Sent Racist Email Sent Lots Of Racist Emails… Probably Because He’s Racist

By Elie Mystal

How many racist emails does it take to brand someone a racist? My personal rule is “one.” If you send one horribly racist email that actually manages to leak out into public discourse, it’s probably not your only one. Seeing a racist email from someone is like seeing a mouse in your apartment: there’s never just one. I believe in temporary insanity, but I don’t believe in sudden onset racism that magically appears once and only once and then disappears forever.
Of course, whenever anybody gets caught in a racist email scandal, they always say that it’s the only one. It’s always “Whoops, that email was racist, but I’m not racist.” The racist email is always allegedly “out of character,” and the person always claims to have shown “poor judgment.” And that person always has some apologists, as if sending one or two racist emails is just something that “happens” in the normal course of business to non-racist people.
That’s what Judge Richard Cebull claimed. In 2012, he was busted sending around a racist email about President Obama. He claimed that he didn’t mean to be “racist” — he just meant to voice his displeasure with the president (as if it wasn’t bad enough for the judge to be taking public opinions about the sitting president).
Some people bought the Cebulls**t. Not me. And Cebull eventually retired. But the investigation into his misconduct continued, and now that investigation has been made public.
Surprise, Richard Cebull sent a ton of racist, sexist, and otherwise inappropriate emails…

The Judicial Council of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals conducted an investigation into Cebull’s behavior in 2013. When Cebull retired in May of that year, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski decided to withhold the report, noting only that the committee found “similarly inappropriate” emails attributed to Cebull.
I tend to think secrecy helps nobody. Just how racist was this guy who was ruling over people in Montana?
Turns out, pretty damn racist. The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct ordered the Ninth Circuit report to be made public. And it’s pretty damning. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

In its now-public report, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council said a subsequent search of court computer tapes dating from 2008 found hundreds of disparaging e-mails sent by Cebull to “personal and professional contacts and court staff.”
Many messages were political and expressed “disdain and disapproval for liberal political leaders” or commented on legislation on topics like gun control and civil rights, the report said. It said a significant number included jokes or commentary disparaging African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos – especially illegal immigrants – and women, and a few were antigay.
The report did not quote any of the offending e-mails.

Hundreds! Cebull initially defended his racist email as being “simply” anti-Obama, but it seems he was sending a lot of awful things that have nothing to do with the president. Somebody must have seen these other Cebull emails. If you have them, please send them along to us via email.
The review found “no evidence of judicial bias,” a statement that I do not believe for a second. Racism does not have an on/off switch. You don’t fundamentally believe that blacks or immigrants or women are inferior to you, and then have that not come out in your professional life. Especially when your professional life involves judging people. If the Ninth Circuit didn’t find evidence of judicial bias, then I think that the Ninth Circuit wasn’t looking hard enough.
Of course, the Ninth Circuit had no reason to really look hard enough. Cebull was a federal judge for 15 years. Did the Ninth Circuit really want to call into question 15 years of federal opinions? They’d be dealing with Cebull-based appeals for the rest of their lives. It’s much cleaner for the court to say, “The man’s retired, let’s move on.”
And really, there are probably tons of people who are just as racist as Richard Cebull floating around the federal judiciary. Nobody actually wants to wrestle with all of the instances of judicial bias in our system. It’s better to encourage judges to not be racist than to look back at all the racist federal judges who have come before.
Just remember Richard Cebull the next time somebody waxes poetic about the importance of stare decisis. Some of our “well settled law” was settled by racist-ass people operating with unaccountable impunity. Excuse me if I don’t think those people deserve a lot of deference.
Earlier: Judge of the Day: Montana Chief Judge Forwards Racially Charged Joke About Obama
Richard Cebull Day Two: Time for the Cebullsh** Apology

Editor's note: Your ProbateShark has to believe that there is a person at the bottom of every law school class as there is in medical school class.  In a corrupt legal system as the Probate Court of Cook County, this Shark has witnessed stupid ninnies who only could succeed in this fertile crooked environment.  Jr. takes the cake and could not even make it on the 18th floor.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

6 Dec 2013 at 12:27 PM

Attorney Misconduct, Email Scandals, Lawyer of the Day, Legal Ethics, Rank Stupidity

Lawyer Falls For Nigerian Inheritance Scam, Gets Suspended

By David Lat

Except, apparently, one lawyer in Iowa.

Which is worse: to be unethical or to be stupid — really, really stupid?
Who says you have to choose? That’s the lesson of today’s story about a lawyer who fell for a Nigerian inheritance scam, dragged his clients into the mess as well, and just got his law license suspended by the Iowa Supreme Court.
Dear Friend: Please permit me to make your acquaintance in so informal a manner. This is necessitated by my urgent need to reach a dependable and trust wordy partner. We do not know each other, it does not matter.
My tale will not cause discomfort or embarrassment in whatever form, except to a monumentally moronic lawyer — who got cleared on some (but not all) of the ethics charges against him because he genuinely believed that a trunk full of money was going to magically show up on his office doorstep….

The lawyer in question is Robert Allan Wright Jr. The “Junior” matters here because Robert Allan Wright Sr. is one of Iowa’s most distinguished civil rights lawyers. Sadly, the apple has fallen a little far from the tree; Robert Allan Wright Jr. has had ethical issues before.
The facts section of Justice Daryl Hecht’s opinion is something to behold. Props to Justice Hecht for displaying what our tipster described as “studied neutrality” in describing a situation like this:

While representing Floyd Lee Madison in a criminal case in 2011, [lawyer Robert Allan Wright Jr.] was presented with documents purporting to evidence that Madison was the beneficiary of a large bequest from his long-lost cousin in Nigeria. Madison represented to Wright that upon payment of $177,660 in taxes owed on the inheritance in Nigeria, the sum of $18,800,000 would be released to Madison. He asked Wright to represent him in securing the transfer of the funds from Nigeria. In consideration for a fee equal to ten percent of the funds recovered, Wright agreed to represent Madison in the Nigerian transaction.

Please, people, refrain from the Iowa jokes. Lawyers in Iowa aren’t the only ones who fall for Nigerian email scams; it’s more common than you might think among attorneys.
Now, being stupid is not a crime — or even a violation of legal ethics. Robert Wright got in trouble for persuading other clients of his to loan money to Floyd Lee Madison for purposes of securing the Nigerian inheritance. For example:

Wright was also representing Linda Putz at that time in a pending workers’ compensation case. The case was nearing completion, and Wright and Putz were awaiting receipt of proceeds of a settlement. Knowing Putz would soon net approximately $25,000 from the settlement, Wright informed her Madison hoped to borrow money to pay Nigerian authorities for an “anti-terrorism certificate” and inquired whether Putz would be willing to loan the sum of $12,500 for this purpose.

Which she did. In fact, Linda Putz ended up loaning a total of $25,000, her entire settlement.
Poor woman. Not only is she a Putz (hopefully that’s not her married name), but her lawyer was too:

In the course of his work on behalf of Madison in pursuit of the Nigerian inheritance, Wright communicated with persons he believed were representatives of the “Central Bank of Nigeria,” the “African Union,” and the President of Nigeria.

What a moron. Everyone knows Nigeria isn’t ruled by a president; it has a prince.
Of course, this didn’t end well. Madison didn’t get that Nigerian inheritance, Wright received no legal fees from that, and the loans made to Madison by Wright’s various clients never got repaid.
This unfortunate situation resulted in a slew of disciplinary charges against Robert Allan Wright Jr., including incompetence, failure to disclose or secure client consent to conflicts of interest, and assisting a client in dishonesty or fraud. But Wright got off on that last charge (emphasis added):

The [Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary] Board’s posthearing brief withdrew the allegation that Wright violated rule 32:1.2(d) by assisting a client in conduct Wright knew to be illegal or fraudulent. The Board made this withdrawal based on its view that “Wright clearly believed in the legitimacy of Madison’s inheritance . . . .” Noting “Wright appears to have honestly believed — and continues to believe — that one day a trunk full of . . . one hundred dollar bills is going to appear upon his office doorstep,” the Board asserted before the commission that Wright’s conduct might aptly be described as delusional, but not fraudulent.

One could use much harsher words than “delusional” to describe Wright’s actions. But people in Iowa are nice, really nice (so nice that their state’s flagship law school is actually cutting tuition).
A division of the Iowa Supreme Court’s Grievance Commission recommended the suspension of Robert Wright’s license to practice law. Once again displaying impeccable judgment, Wright appealed that recommendation, so he could get sanctioned and embarrassed on a grander scale by the Supreme Court of Iowa itself:

We suspend Wright’s license to practice law in this state with no possibility of reinstatement for a period of no less than twelve months. This suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law, including but not limited to advertising his services.

And as we all know from those ubiquitous disclaimers, lawyer advertising can include sending emails.
Dearest Beloved: Have you been injured in an accident? I do not come to you by chance….
(Flip to the next page to read or download the full opinion, which is really quite amazing. If you teach professional responsibility, consider this as fun fodder for your students.)