Law students with the People's Parity Project distribute leaflets outside of DLA Piper's Washington office on Thursday, Oct. 10, 2019. (Courtesy of People's Parity Project)

It took just nine days for DLA Piper to part ways with Louis Lehot after another partner at the firm publicly alleged that he had sexually assaulted her multiple times.

But DLA Piper has yet to budge on the broader issue highlighted in Vanina Guerrero's explosive open letter: the firm's insistence on resolving her claims against Lehot through arbitration, per a clause she signed upon joining the firm in September 2018.

On the heels of the letter, student activists from the People's Parity Project protested the global firm's mandatory arbitration policy outside of its offices in three cities. A lawyer who had interacted with Lehot when she worked in DLA Piper's office of general counsel published her own open letter detailing her exposure to Lehot's alleged bullying behavior and offering her support for Guerrero.

Lehot's departure by the end of the day Oct. 11 shows the power of public pressure, even against an attorney who, according to Guerrero, has a $22 million book of business.

But Guerrero's attorney, Wigdor LLP partner Jeanne Christensen, says she's still pessimistic about DLA Piper's willingness to take a deeper look at its culture, and she is digging in for a protracted fight.

She pointed to the internal email the firm released Oct. 11, in which the news of Lehot's exit was followed by a line noting that Guerrero's allegations had yet to be substantiated.

"They could have just put out Lehot was parting ways; instead, they included misleading statements that retaliate against my client," Christensen claimed.

Christensen also said that while Guerrero remains at DLA Piper, she's had work taken away from her since going public, while colleagues are openly blaming her for the negative publicity she has brought to the firm.

"Instead of blaming Lehot, it's blaming the victim for speaking out about what this guy did," she continued.

Lehot has not responded publicly to Guerrero's allegations. After her claims were first aired Oct. 2, DLA Piper said it had begun an investigation as soon as it had been made aware of the matter. The firm had no immediate response to Christensen's claims that Guerrero has faced retaliation over her letter.

Dueling Views

While the firm did not directly answer an inquiry about whether it intended to release Guerrero from her own arbitration agreement, a spokesman said in an email that the wider policy has merit.

"There are advantages and disadvantages to every type of dispute resolution process," DLA Piper said in a statement. "It has been our experience as a firm that arbitration is a fair and efficient way to resolve internal disputes, and one that benefits all parties in what are often sensitive matters for everyone involved."

Even if Guerrero remains bound by her own mandatory arbitration clause, Molly Coleman, the Harvard Law Student who leads the People's Parity Project, believes the open letter and subsequent events have advanced the conversation about the practice.

"It showcases exactly what type of behavior companies and employers try to hide when they force employees into arbitration," she said. "This is an absolutely horrifying story of the repeated abuse of a woman of color in the workplace."

Coleman said that women of color are often the most harmed by mandatory arbitration agreements, while others may lack the same ability as Guerrero to hire a lawyer and have their own story told. Not just partners and associates, but also nonlegal staff and even custodial staff remain bound by these clauses.

"Letting go of one bad actor is not going to solve that systemic problem," she said.

According to her group's research, DLA Piper's continued adherence to mandatory arbitration puts it in a distinct minority among major law firms.

Since it was founded by Harvard Law School students as the Pipeline Parity Project in April 2018, a number of prominent firms have dropped their use of the practice under pressure, including Kirkland & Ellis and Sidley Austin.

Of 142 firms who answered Harvard Law School's 2019 employer survey, DLA Piper is one of just seven that reported continuing to require associates and summer associates to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. (Cooley is the only other Am Law 100 firm of the seven.) An additional nine firms require the agreements from "any" of its employees.

"The only thing that seems to have worked to get law firms to do away with them is the boycott by law students," said Brooklyn Law School professor Minna Kotkin, the director of the school's employment law clinic.

She added that students at places like Harvard have outsize influence because firms are locked into tight competition for the most credentialed law school graduates. Students from schools that lack the same name recognition, who may be more desperate to secure a job in a tight hiring environment, don't have the same leverage.

"That's why it's so important that students at elite law schools take this stance," Kotkin said.

Indeed, along with Harvard, the other seven schools hosting chapters of the People's Parity Project aren't lacking in prestige: Yale, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown, Michigan and UT-Austin, along with Northeastern.

But Christensen argues that there's one group out there that has even more might.

"It's the clients who have the most say. It's clients who retain DLA and pay the fees. If clients believe that DLA cannot retain and attract the best talent, [they] have the ability to take their issues elsewhere," she said. "That will have the most impact."

Read More

Louis Lehot Pushed Out at DLA Piper Following Sexual Assault Allegations

Shaking Up Big Law, Harvard-Founded Student Group Goes National

A Post-#MeToo Standard Emerges in Law Firms as Orrick, Mayer Brown Oust Partners

Big Law Is Targeted—In Person—By Law Students Opposing Mandatory Arbitration