The gender discrimination suit against Chadbourne & Parke is getting hotter. Now it looks like the other female partners at the firm are ganging up on Kerrie Campbell, the woman who's suing the firm. I hate to say it, but it's beginning to look like a Big Law episode of “Mean Girls.”

Last month, Chadbourne partner Campbell filed a $100 million class action suit against the firm, alleging that female lawyers are compensated less than their male colleagues, even when women generate more business, and that the firm retaliates against women who raise the issue. In response, the firm disputed Campbell's claims, issuing a statement that her complaint was “riddled with falsehoods.”

So far, pretty standard public relations stuff from a company or firm in this kind of case.

Now the latest salvo: As first reported Monday by The Wall Street Journal, 14 of the firm's 16 female partners sent a letter to Campbell's lawyer, David Sanford (click here for my interview with him), with this message: Bug off.

Essentially, the 14 signers say they want nothing to do with the class action. (Campbell is one of the two lawyers who didn't sign; the other partner is traveling on a charitable trip in the “developing world,” according to a source close to the firm.)

But the letter is more than a “Thanks-but-no-thanks” message. It seems to convey the idea that the female partners at Chadbourne are doing fine and need no help.

In fact, it turns the tables on Campbell by suggesting that it's her lawyer who's the chauvinist. The first paragraph of the letter states:

“Your complaint claims that it must speak for us because we are too afraid to speak for ourselves. That is not how we see ourselves and certainly not how any of us believes our clients and colleagues perceive us.”

The women write that they were not contacted by Sanford before they were swept into the class—a tactic they claim “is no less patronizing and patriarchal than what you accuse our male colleagues of having done.” The letter then goes on to say that Sanford's complaint “makes a group of very accomplished, assertive and intelligent professional women look like they are victims unable to hold their own with their male colleagues.”

I don't know the protocol for contacting potential class members, but it seems strange that Campbell's lawyer would be called “patronizing and patriarchal” for taking a plaintiff with claims like hers.

Though the letter is addressed to Sanford, it's hard to read it as anything but a rebuke of Campbell's claims. It reminds me of the long list of women who quickly rose to Roger Ailes' defense when he was accused of sexual harassment and retaliation by Gretchen Carlson. Funny thing, though, when the evidence started to mount against Ailes, some of his defenders went quiet, and one very vocal supporter (Greta Van Susteren) later accused Fox of failing to control Ailes.

If the aim of the letter is to make Campbell's claims less credible, I'm not sure it's doing the trick. Though it's possible that the 14 signers feel they have been treated fairly by the firm, it's also possible that peer pressure led some to sign the letter.

The letter didn't begin with a single person, says the source that's close to Chadbourne. It was started in a small group, according to the source, then leaked to The Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, Sanford says, “I've been contacted by a number of Chadbourne partners and associates.” Current ones? “I cannot speak about the particulars of people who contacted us,” Sanford tells me.

Everyone is being coy. You just know this will get juicier.

Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.