Cleary's Decision To Fire Heavyweight Team Was 'Very Un-Cleary'
The firm's decision to expel the Freshfields-bound team has been described as unusual and as 'sour grapes'.
October 30, 2019 at 07:28 AM
4 minute read
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton's decision to fire a four-partner team last week after the firm learned of their planned exit to Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has surprised many in the market, with a number of partners and recruiters criticising the decision and warning of the impact it might have on the firm.
The New York team was fired before giving notice about their departure last week in response to a breach of duties to the firm in relation to confidential information and the handling of clients, according to one person close to the situation.
But the unusual move has raised eyebrows among rivals, industry advisers and former partners. Several partners Legal Week spoke to said the move was simply "sour grapes". One London-based partner at a U.S. firm agreed, and added: "Their reaction is bad – a sore loser reaction."
One former Cleary partner who spent time in the firm's New York office described the decision as "more spiteful" than he recognised the firm's culture to be from his time there. He added it was a "very un-Cleary" move to make.
So why make it? Some feel it could possibly be intended as a deterrent to other partners who might think of departing. The view stems from the fact that the quartet is so highly regarded.
The group is a heavyweight team and includes M&A rainmaker Ethan Klingsberg, who Freshfields is said to have broken its lockstep model for to bring him in on a multimillion-dollar package. A person with knowledge of the move said Klingsberg is expected to receive more than $10 million with a guarantee for "at least five years".
U.S.-based recruiter and former Cleary lawyer Alisa Levin told The American Lawyer last week that following the departures it will be "open season" on other Cleary partners.
She added: "Cleary lawyers are known to be among the best and most creative in the field and previously regarded as virtually untouchable by other firms. If someone like [Klingsberg] can be poached, I think others are going to stop and think."
The London-based partner said he doubts Cleary's move will have a deterrent effect. He said: "They may think it will, but it won't. People are allowed to leave."
Others felt the reasons behind Cleary's move were unlikely to be so ominous, suggesting instead that Cleary may have decided the partner group had broken the conditions of their deed by discussing their departure openly prior to giving notice, and fired them as a direct result of that.
"Cleary is a classy firm, so there must be a reason for this," said another recruiter. "You can't draw any huge conclusions."
The move to fire the team also has financial implications. "Certain payments may not kick in if they're fired," one recruiter said, with another adding that the decision to kick out the group may impact their financial entitlements, including repayment of their capital and partner pensions.
He warned that while there are all sorts of things firms can do in this situation, if a legal challenge is sought, a balance is needed between "throwing the book at the departing partners and Cleary's own credibility".
"They need to be careful in how they handle this," the recruiter said, "as a number of clients don't like seeing firms behave in an aggressively petulant manner."
A Cleary spokesperson said: "It is our policy not to comment on personnel matters."
The departing partners did not respond to requests for comment.
Meanwhile, the former Cleary partner said the team's decision to leave raises questions about the "health of the Cleary culture".
"[Cleary] is a place that is deeply gentlemanly and one of the few true lockstep cultures remaining," he said. "To have people come out of that, for whatever reason, raises questions."
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 AllCharles Russell Speechlys Gains Traction in Latin America
Trump and China: Lawyers Warn of Risk to the Practice of Law
Big Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic about M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Trending Stories
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