Nobody Does It Better

She wasn't a very good lawyer, she didn't bill enough, she had no clients. And worst of all -- she didn't have a good personality and wasn't a very good dancer. No, we're not talking dating partners, we're talking legal partners who sour on each other. Of course, nobody does it better than lawyers on the attack.

This is an update on the latest on the attorney from the Delaware County office of Cozen & O'Connor, Patricia Biswanger, who sued the firm for sex discrimination after being terminated, that I covered last month, Legal Tales. As noted in the Legal Intelligencer, Cozen O'Connor: Lawyer Suing for Sex Discrimination Was Fired for 'Poor Judgment':

Cozen O'Connor has fired back at a woman lawyer who filed a sex discrimination suit against the firm, saying in its formal answer to the suit that she was fired for "poor judgment and poor decision-making" and for continuing to violate firm rules even after she was placed on probation.

* * * *

While Biswanger claims that she was punished by the firm for her "political involvement," the firm's answer denies that characterization. "Firm attorneys may engage in political activities on behalf of themselves as individuals, but are restricted from engaging in political activities on behalf of the firm without advance approval."

Biswanger's use of firm letterhead and e-mail in her own political battles, the answer says, "suggested that her personal views were supported by the firm," and gave the appearance that the firm "was representing individuals who were not clients of the firm."

In the suit, Biswanger claims that during her nearly seven years at the firm, her work was consistently rated as "excellent" or "outstanding," and that she was routinely given generous raises and bonuses that were "among the largest awarded" to the firm's junior members.

But the firm, in its answer, suggests that Biswanger exaggerated the quality of her performance.

"During portions of her employment with the firm, Ms. Biswanger's performance of some of her duties met or exceeded the firm's expectations of attorneys of her experience and status," the answer says.

But the answer says the firm "denies that Ms. Biswanger represented the firm's 'most prominent' clients in 'substantial' matters because these terms are vague and undefined. The firm regards all of its clients as 'prominent' and it treats all matters as 'substantial.'"

The answer also says the firm denies that Biswanger ever received an "excellent" evaluation because "the firm's evaluation system does not contain a rating titled 'excellent.'"

As for Biswanger's claim that she received a salary increase that was among the highest in the firm, the answer says that Biswanger's salary increase was "modest."

Love the response. The legalisms are just too perfect, such as she couldn't have received an "excellent" evaluation because we don't have such a rating. Humm, I wonder what term they use instead to distinguish between average and excellent lawyers? Above average? Superlawyers? And I truly love: all clients are "prominent" and all matters are "substantial."

On the other hand, as much as I love the fuss & muss, I must concede that it sounds like Biswanger may have gotten involved in some nasty politics in Havertown Township, which ended up raising the ire of then President Judge Clouse. I don't blame Cozen for not wanting to get involved in that sort of battle. After all, they are a litigation firm that has to appear before the bench in Delaware County. Doesn't help your client to have the Judge as a sworn enemy of the firm or its lawyers.

And because they didn't want to miss out on the fun, Philly firm also Ballard Spahr decided to one-up Cozen & O'Connor in the law partner legal divorce front, which resulted in its own gender discrimination lawsuit. This one, however, makes the Biswanger case look like baby stuff. In a case involving a female partner in its Baltimore office, the Legal Intelligencer states, Ballard Spahr Fails to Halt Gender Discrimination Claim:

After attempting to resolve internally alleged issues of inequitable pay and the piecemeal removal of her practice over the course of a decade, Jane Ennis Sheehan had confidentially presented on May 9 gender discrimination claims and a demand letter to Ballard Spahr Chairman Arthur Makadon through her counsel, according to court documents from both sides.

Sheehan claimed that another partner who was supposed to be her equal in a two-person team took her practice from her over the course of several years and called it his own. That partner was ultimately paid more for doing the same work, she said in her demand letter.

She also claimed in the letter that she was retaliated against for bringing these claims to light internally, eventually resulting in her being taken from a percentage or equity partner to an income partner.

The best part is that after they were unable to resolve the matter during the course of a conference call with the various parties and their counsel:

The next day, Ballard Spahr filed an action for declaratory judgment in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, arguing that the firm had not violated Sheehan's rights under the Equal Pay Act and had not breached any fiduciary duty.

You know -- the lawyer version of the scorched earth policy as a way of dispute resolution. The ABA Journal explained it well, Ballard Spahr Stumbles in Race to Court:

A Philadelphia judge has ruled that a law firm’s attempt to head off a gender discrimination complaint is premature.

Judge Gary DiVito ruled Sept. 24 that Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll could not obtain declaratory relief “in anticipation of an action at law by another party,” the Legal Intelligencer reports. He said administrative remedies must be exhausted first.

The firm filed the suit May 31 seeking a decision that it had not violated equal pay rights or a fiduciary duty to Baltimore real-estate partner Jane Ennis Sheehan. The suit was filed a day after lawyers held a conference call to discuss a resolution to Sheehan’s complaints.

Sheehan claims she was supposed to be an equal on a two-partner team, but the male partner took over her practice and was paid more for doing the same work, the Legal Intelligencer says. Her demand letter said she was downgraded from an equity partner to an income partner after she brought her complaints to light.

After the firm filed the lawsuit, Sheehan filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I guess it's the 2007 version of the 1984 Hishon v. King & Spalding case, which (unsuccessfully) argued that sex discrimination laws don't apply to law firms. Of course, the law firm couldn't have known that it couldn't stop the lawsuit before it started. It's a law firm. We all know that the laws don't really apply to lawyers. We just apply them to others.

Tags: Law, News