Latham Had 'No Choice' but to Remove Voge, Industry Watchers Say
Bill Voge's quick ouster was critical for the firm, lawyers and PR professionals said, especially as the industry adjusts to the heightened scrutiny of the #MeToo era.
March 21, 2018 at 07:13 PM
6 minute read
Latham & Watkins chairman Bill Voge's resignation from the firm this week, over what Voge called “a lapse of judgment” and Latham called “the exchange of communications of a sexual nature,” was nothing if not abrupt.
But lawyers and legal PR professionals said it was critical that Voge be removed from his position before news of his alleged behavior spread—even though the conduct appeared to be confined to his personal life.
Latham referred to Voge's departure as a “resignation” but made clear that its executive committee found his behavior, while not illegal and not involving Latham itself, to be “not befitting the leader of the firm.”
It's important to note that, according to Latham's statement, Voge voluntarily disclosed the communications that were found to be inappropriate, said Shira Scheindlin, a former U.S. District Court judge in New York who now practices at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.
“I have written that there is some process due to a person before they are terminated, but that's if he denies” the misconduct, she said. “Once somebody has acknowledged that level of inappropriate conduct and they are the face of the firm, it is wise not to allow them to remain in that position.”
Gina Rubel, CEO of Furia Rubel Communications, said Latham had “no choice” but to remove Voge, particularly in light of the #MeToo movement.
“Depending on the type of allegations and the type of issues, law firms and all companies alike have a fiduciary duty to their employees and their clients,” Rubel said. “If I were their communications manager or doing their PR, I would absolutely remove him.”
Businesses and firms “assiduously cultivate and protect their brand,” said Jason Winmill, managing partner at ArgoPoint and consultant to Fortune 500 corporate legal departments. The reputation of their leader “is central to that image,” he said.
“From what I've read of the story, this seems like a case of an executive of a very prominent business organization that appears to have displayed at the very least very poor judgment in how he conducted his personal life,” he said.
By ousting its leader, “[Latham] appears to be making a clear statement that his personal behavior is incompatible with their brand,” said Winmill, who had no direct knowledge of the matter.
Brand Consequences
Leaders of other law firms, speaking publicly and privately, said they were stunned by the news but said Latham's vague statements still left many questions. The firm did not describe Voge's actions or the messages he disclosed to the executive committee.
Joshua Galper, co-founder of crisis management-focused law firm Davis Goldberg & Galper, said it appears Latham made the right choice in parting ways with Voge, if his actions had risked the firm's reputation. But, he said, the firm's vague statement also raises the question: What particular behavior was found to be inappropriate?
“If you're going to start firing firm leaders for attempting to engage in extramarital affairs, Big Law won't be so big anymore,” he said.
John Langan, managing partner of Northeast regional firm Barclay Damon, said “from a distance,” it sounds like the firm handled it appropriately.
“It's hard to argue that it wasn't handled aggressively by the firm, if he's stepping down,” he said.
While Latham's public statement was vague, the executive committee's actions indicate there's much more to the story, Rubel said, which would mean their response was far from an overreaction. Hesitating to take action could have come with serious negative consequences for the firm, she said.
“They find themselves in a major quandary just one month after they announced that they made history with $3 billion in revenue,” she said. “I don't think it's a big hit to their reputation. … They will come out on top, having handled it what appears to be swiftly and with integrity.”
Winmill agreed, though he noted, “What will happen to Bill Voge's individual clients may be an entirely different matter.”
“It seems Latham has acted quickly and decisively on this matter, doing their best to put it in the rearview mirror,” Winmill said, adding that most clients would want to put it behind them, too.
Langan said he doesn't expect any damage to Latham's brand.
“The firm is bigger than any one lawyer,” he said. “Latham is a giant of a firm. It's the gold standard of so many practices.”
Different Era
Voge's resignation is just the latest case in 2018 in which a prominent lawyer in an Am Law 100 firm has been in the news for sexual misconduct, after the resignation of a Mayer Brown partner who had just arrived from Morrison & Foerster and a Baker McKenzie lawyer left the firm after being accused of assaulting an associate.
“The legal industry is likely to become aware of the issues the MeToo movement has uncovered and will [try] to confront and manage those issues,” Winmill said.
Galper agreed but noted that Voge's situation is somewhat of an outlier, since the misconduct in question involved a person who was neither an employee of the firm, nor a client, according to Latham's statement. Other law firms that come across inappropriate behavior will have to consider the facts independently, he said.
“There's been a sea change in a lot of different industries,” Galper said. “That current has not run its course yet.”
Scheindlin said Voge's case is unique because he has acknowledged his actions were inappropriate. But, she said, Latham's response is an example of change in the legal industry, and other industries. It used to be that lower-level employees were ousted immediately, following allegations of sexual misconduct, but senior lawyers and rainmakers were protected, she said.
“Because of the MeToo movement, you no longer have the exception for the stars,” Scheindlin said. “What's changed now in law firms and other industries is there's no longer a two-tiered way of reacting to those situations.”
Rubel said Voge will not be the last person to be publicly ousted by a firm for misconduct, as the industry moves toward greater transparency in addressing misconduct.
“Law firms are starting to understand that reputation management is just as important as trial management,” she said. “There's no doubt that we're going to hear about this over and over again.”
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 AllLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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