DLA Piper Says Partner 'Orchestrated' Relationship With Her Alleged Assaulter
Vanina Guerrero "was a willing participant in a lengthy emotional flirtation" with Louis Lehot "to advance her career," DLA Piper alleged in a Tuesday filing with the EEOC, citing an internal email that Guerrero wrote to herself.
October 29, 2019 at 06:15 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
DLA Piper has submitted its first formal response to claims by partner Vanina Guerrero that she was the subject of repeated sexual assaults by Silicon Valley rainmaker Louis Lehot, highlighting a stream of consciousness letter she emailed to herself saying that offering "friendship w/o anything" would allow her to "control" him.
While both Lehot and DLA Piper have been employing a carefully crafted media strategy in response to Guerrero's allegations, the firm's 122-page response Tuesday to her Sept. 30 charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission marks a new phase in the fight.
The firm's letter draws on an internal investigation handled by attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher that has already led to the dismissal of Lehot and the administrative suspension of Guerrero, and it appends nearly 100 pages of emails and photographs.
"Ms. Guerrero's own emails show that she was not subject to abuse or assault by Mr. Lehot. In fact, dozens of emails and messages show that Ms. Guerrero was a willing participant in a lengthy emotional flirtation with Mr. Lehot that she orchestrated to advance her career," Gibson Dunn attorneys Michele Maryott, Katherine Smith and Kevin Rosen wrote.
One of the linchpins for this argument is an email that Guerrero sent to herself, via her DLA Piper account, on Nov. 10, 2018, just weeks after the third of four alleged assaults she claimed against Lehot. (Lehot has denied ever assaulting Guerrero.)
Guerrero begins one section of that email, which is over two pages long: "Louis: This man will help me / Control him: friendship w/o anything."
"Cannelize [sic] the energy – get me to where I need professionally," she continues. "Don't open up to him / Leverage it for me…"
The Gibson Dunn attorneys note that the email, which is published in full, includes a number of other candid statements about her professional goals and references to her sexuality, and it does not describe Lehot as "abusive, bullying, or controlling"—in contrast to her EEOC claims.
As further evidence of what it characterizes as Guerrero's duplicity, the Gibson Dunn team representing DLA Piper pointed to her omission of a March 2019 trip she took with Lehot to Machu Picchu from her EEOC charge and her other public statements,
The trip came after the fourth and final allegation of sexual assault, during which Guerrero claimed she made it clear to Lehot that she would never be in an "intimate relationship" with him, allegedly prompting Lehot to threaten her job, position at the firm and compensation, telling her "their working relationship would never be the same."
It also came after the date Guerrero said she'd "forfeit[ed] opportunities" to travel with Lehot out of fear he "would sequester her in a hotel room and physically force himself on her."
The letter also provided an alternate explanation for the transformation in the working relationship between Guerrero and Lehot, who recruited Guerrero to leave her job in Hong Kong as general counsel for both Reliance Communications, the flagship telecom arm of Indian conglomerate Reliance Group, and its internet and technology subsidiary.
The Gibson Dunn attorneys said the pair disagreed over whether Guerrero's time and the firm's resources were best spent pursuing work on a transaction in which the client had not yet received sufficient funding to meet the firm's anticipated fees. The letter added that when Guerrero took the issue to Sang Kim, another partner on the deal and a member of DLA Piper's global board, she said that Lehot was "controlling" but did not share that she was "assaulted."
Rather than removing her from the deal in retaliation for her complaint, as Guerrero claimed, she was removed at the instruction of the client, DLA Piper alleges.
Guerrero's attorney, Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor LLP, said, "DLA Piper, a global law firm, has managed to reach a new low in the how to smear women that speak out about sexual assault playbook—a low that even Harvey Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly and Matt Lauer did not reach."
The letter also called out Leah Christensen, the former DLA Piper conflicts counsel who has spoken up publicly in support of Guerrero. Christensen has described her own experience with Lehot's alleged bullying and a purported culture of impunity for top-earners at the firm. But the Gibson Dunn attorneys said that Christensen, based in San Diego, was not in a position to know about Lehot's activities in the Palo Alto, California, office, and that she violated her duty to the firm by speaking out about its internal communications, particularly a letter that purportedly identified a "top ten" list of attorneys "not to be bothered."
"Christensen's letter to this Commission, as well as her public statements, are in direct violation of her duty of confidentiality and her duty of loyalty, among other ethical and tortious transgressions," the letter said.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNewly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Overcoming Hurricane Helene: How the Western North Carolina Legal Community Managed Court Closures, Sanitation Concerns
On a Texas Growth Surge, Paul Hastings Signs New Leases in Houston, Dallas
3 minute readAttorney Claims Phila. Roundup Trial Schedule Has Given 'Unfair' Preference to Certain Firms
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250