Ropes & Gray on Monday became the first big law firm to weigh in on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging a California court ruling that invalidated a former Winston & Strawn partner's employee-arbitration agreement.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, head of Ropes & Gray's appellate and Supreme Court practice, wrote in an amicus brief—filed in support of Winston & Strawn—that his firm's lawyers “handle highly confidential attorney-client privileged information and highly confidential business information every day. The California Court of Appeal's decision impedes the firm's ability to rely on confidential arbitrations to protect this sensitive information from public disclosure.”

Hallward-Driemeier was referring to Ramos v. Winston & Strawn, a 2018 decision by the California Court of Appeal that sided with Constance Ramos, an experienced litigator and patent practitioner who left the firm and sued, claiming discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and anti-fair-pay practices.

Ramos alleged in her California state court complaint that she was effectively forced out of Winston & Strawn. Her case is one of several in recent years filed by associates or partners alleging discriminatory employment practices against women at big law firms.

Winston & Strawn moved to compel arbitration, but the Court of Appeal, citing one of its own precedents from 2000, found the arbitration agreement “unconscionable.” The court, ruling in Ramos' favor last year, concluded provisions in the agreement requiring Ramos to pay her own legal fees and to share the cost of arbitration were both unlawful.

The firm took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court with a cert petition filed in May by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, co-head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. The petition asserts that the California appeal court's ruling ignored the high court's 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, which solidified the force of arbitration agreements.

“The broader context is the California judiciary's persistent defiance of this court's clear rulings on arbitration,” Rosenkranz wrote in the brief.

The Ropes & Gray brief underscored the importance of arbitration agreements, especially at law firms.

“Today, it is common for law firms to experience regular fluctuations in their partnership ranks,” Hallward-Driemeier wrote. “As a result, it has become increasingly important for law firms to be able to quickly and efficiently resolve internal disputes in a way that protects confidential information and minimizes disruptions to client service.”

Hallward-Driemeier argued that “public litigation of disputes between law firm partners also carries the unique and ever-present risk of disclosing client secrets, which lawyers have a paramount ethical obligation to protect.” He added: “Confidential arbitration offers a means of shielding client and firm confidential information, and avoiding the immeasurable harm that may flow from public disputes—particularly disputes that center on specific client relationships, like the complaint that respondent filed here.”

Karla Ann Gilbride, senior attorney at Public Justice, is representing Ramos in the Supreme Court litigation.

Ropes & Gray's amicus brief is posted below: