The power of social media in the #MeToo era once again swept into the realm of Big Law over the weekend.

Munger, Tolles & Olson reacted swiftly Sunday afternoon after its demand that summer associates submit to mandatory arbitration agreements emerged via Twitter less than 24 hours before.

“In this case, we were wrong, and we are fixing it,” said a March 25 statement from Munger Tolles posted to the firm's Twitter account.

Only a day prior, Ian Samuel, a former Jones Day associate and current lecturer at Harvard Law School, used Twitter to first leak out a copy of Munger Tolles' proposed arbitration agreement. After that document began making the rounds on social media, racking up critiques along the way, the Los Angeles-based Am Law 200 firm was quick to retract its position.

“We will no longer require any employees, including summer associates, to sign any mandatory arbitration agreements,” Munger Tolles said in its statement.

Neither the firm's leadership, which includes co-managing partners Brad Brian and Sandra Seville-Jones, nor Samuel immediately responded to requests for comment on Sunday.

The leaked agreement required that Munger Tolles summer associates arbitrate all employment-related claims, including those that fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which includes sexual harassment.

The document also contained a provision requiring that “the fact and content of any arbitration proceeding … shall be held in the strictest confidence and not disclosed to any person other than legal counsel or any firm insurer.”

While arbitration clauses can provide a cost-saving and streamlined form of dispute resolution, their efficacy and fairness with respect to harassment or gender bias claims has been called into question in a post-Harvey Weinstein world.

Earlier this month, the New York State Senate passed legislation that would ban mandatory arbitration clauses in sexual harassment cases. New York State Sen. Catharine Young, a Republican and the sponsor of the bill, said during the debate over its passage that forced arbitration clauses were one of the primary reasons that Weinstein and other powerful individuals have “gotten away with this over and over and over again.”