For Law Firm GCs, Dealing With Partners' Conduct Can be a 'Tightrope'
“It makes no difference to me whether it's one of my closest friends or a partner I have never met,” said Nicholas Gravante, GC of Boies Schiller. “My obligation is to the firm. The firm is my client.”
November 20, 2017 at 04:48 PM
4 minute read
Nicholas Gravante of Boies Schiller Flexner. Free (Handout).
When a law firm partner misbehaves, the firm's general counsel is often caught between being a trusted adviser to the partner while representing the best interests of the law firm.
It's an issue that has no doubt plagued many a law firm GC. According to attorney James Jones, there's a real “tightrope to walk” in these situations. Jones, a former partner at Arnold & Porter, is founder of Legal Management Resources, a law firm consultancy that also hosts round tables for law firm general counsel.
Jones divides lawyer conduct into three categories: 1) actions that simply cause a business issue because they may embarrass the firm or be offensive to a firm client; 2) problems that involve a “troubled” employee, such as alcohol or drug abuse, or mental health issues; and, 3) allegations that rise to the level of ethical or legal wrongdoing.
In a scenario that Jones believes could fall into the first category, back in 2011, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement clashed with his law firm, King & Spalding, which did not want him to continue leading the legal charge to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Typically, Jones said, the law firm GC does not become deeply involved in a business matter like this one, but may be part of an executive committee that deals with it.
In troubled employee cases, Jones said the GC normally would work with human resources or bring in a consultant and help reach an agreement with the troubled lawyer on a treatment plan.
But Jones said the law firm general counsel usually finds himself most deeply involved in cases alleging ethical or legal misconduct, which can range from domestic violence to sexual harassment to malpractice.
“When these circumstances arise, there's always the question of whether it is a reportable event to a regulatory authority [i.e., the state bar],” he said. “The general counsel is typically the one to make that decision.”
Several law firm GCs declined to talk about how they handle such problems, but Nicholas Gravante of Boies Schiller Flexner agreed to discuss the topic in general. His law firm has been embroiled in a high-profile controversy of late, over actions taken by firm chairman David Boies while representing Harvey Weinstein.
In that matter, Boies was defending Weinstein from sexual harassment and assault allegations and took action to try and stop The New York Times from writing a story about Weinstein. The Times was also Boies' client at the time. Neither is his client now.
Gravante said he couldn't discuss the Boies case. But in general, he said when a problem with a partner arises, he follows several basic steps.
First, he investigates and gathers the facts. Then, if needed, he brings in outside help. Based in New York City, Gravante said he is not a member of the bar in other states where the law firm has offices. “So I may need to hire and consult with an expert in ethics in any of those states,” he said. “And sometimes I have to do that even in New York, because I am not an ethics expert. I am an active litigator with a full docket of cases, which is a model a lot of firms use” for their general counsel.
He said he then determines if the behavior is required to be reported externally to the bar, and/or internally to the firm's executive committee. If it goes to the committee, of which he is a member, Gravante said he would include a recommendation for action that can range from a reprimand, up to dismissal of the lawyer.
Jones said one of a law firm GC's most difficult issues is having to deal with a partner who may also be a close friend. But Gravante said that is not a tough call for him.
“It makes no difference to me whether it's one of my closest friends or a partner I have never met,” Gravante said. “My obligation is to the firm. The firm is my client.”
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 AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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