Willkie's Gordon Caplan Is Obscure No More
Until that huge college admissions scandal broke just over 24 hours ago, I bet most you didn't know Gordon Caplan existed.
March 13, 2019 at 06:01 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
This is one way of making yourself into a brand.
Until that huge college admissions scandal broke just over 24 hours ago, I bet most you didn't know Gordon Caplan existed. Sure, he was a muckety-muck at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, where, until just a few hours ago, he was serving as co-chair. And, yeah, he got industry accolades like being named American Lawyer's “Dealmaker of the Year” in 2018 and getting a public service award from Fordham University School of Law in 2016, but who remembers that stuff?
Well, Caplan is obscure no more! Overnight, he's giving Michael Cohen a run for the money in the sleazy lawyer category.
As one of 50 people accused by the Justice Department of cheating the college admissions system, Caplan has become a symbol of how wealthy parents use illegal means (versus legal ones—which are egregious in their own right) to buy their kids a spot in competitive colleges. As you probably know, Caplan allegedly shelled out $75,000 to a college counseling company to inflate his daughter's ACT score. (I reached out to Caplan for comment but have not heard back).
Before I go further, may I just say something positive about the alleged criminals? The press loves to portray them as this monolithic group of overprivileged fat cats, but did anyone notice that they're actually sort of a diverse bunch? I mean, I detected surnames from a range of ethnic groups on the list: Chinese (a “Chen” no less!), Hispanic (“Henriquez”) and Middle Eastern (“Abdelaziz” and “Zadeh”). Frankly, the list was more diverse than the new partnership class at many firms. So who says there are no people of color among the rich and entitled?
Anyway, let's get back to Caplan. There's no way to excuse his alleged actions. What I find particularly low, if prosecutors are right in their allegations, was his willingness to fake a learning disability for his daughter so that she could take the ACT under conditions that would allow her score to be doctored.
As the parent of a grown child with dyslexia, I find this pretty unforgivable. My daughter's dyslexia didn't spring up the night before her SAT test (she was diagnosed at age eight), and she's worked hard her entire life to compensate for it—and still does. Like many people with dyslexia, she's had to defend herself against charges that it's a ploy to get advantages. The irony is that she didn't even try to get double time to take her SAT the way that Caplan's daughter allegedly did.
But as reprehensible as Caplan's alleged acts are, I also find him strangely poignant. In recordings described in the FBI complaint, you could tell he felt uncertain about the path he was taking. He constantly asked for reassurance from the owner of the college counseling company (who was cooperating with the FBI) that everything would turn out fine. And he was most concerned about the consequences for his daughter. Though he said, according to prosecutors, “I'm not worried about the moral issue here,” he added, “I'm worried about the, if she's caught doing that, you know, she's finished.”
I don't know if his daughter is finished (though she might want to consider a gap year at this point) but Caplan's career is unlikely to recover.
“The alleged conduct, if true, can warrant serious discipline,” says NYU Law professor Stephen Gillers. “It doesn't matter that the alleged dishonesty is not in connection with a client matter.” Disbarment is automatic if the charges leads to a felony conviction, he adds.
Criminal charges, banishment from Big Law, the possibility of disbarment—and all the ignominy that goes with it.
Gordon Caplan is in a big pickle. Sad thing is he deserves it.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
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 AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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