Patricia Biswanger, a lawyer, has filed a lawsuit against Steven Cozen and Patrick O'Connor, her former bosses, that reads like a Scott Turow tale of politics, sexism and egos. (Download the 23-page complaint.) We have no opinion or knowledge of who is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, in the case, which was filed in federal court on Tuesday. There's a long history (scroll down for Gil Spencer item) about the disputes. Still, it's well worth reading just for a hint of the local drama.
In the lawsuit, Biswanger, an accomplished and politically active attorney who formerly worked at the politically influential Philadelphia firm Cozen O'Connor, is accusing the firm of sexual discrimination and retaliatory firing in 2005 stemming from their political activism in Haverford.
Her lawyers write that she was one "among a minority of the firm's lawyers who voluntarily and regularly responded to founding shareholders Steve Cozen's and Pat O'Connor's requests for contributions to the firm's political action committees and designated charities." At the same time, the suit says she has been "heavily involved in politics in Haverford Township for about twenty years. Politics in Haverford is historically contentious."
Indeed, some of the contentiousness has resulted in bribery and theft charges involving others. The lawsuit claims Kenneth A. Clouse, then-President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, took issue with Biswanger's "activism" and says:
18. In or about the early Spring of 2004, Judge Clouse unsuccessfully attempted to contact Steven Cozen for the purpose of complaining about Plaintiff and demanding that the Firm terminate her. Plaintiff learned about Judge Clouse's plans from a mutual acquaintance and informed Mr. Cozen, then Chairman of the firm, who assured her that she had nothing to worry about, and that if Judge Clouse wanted to "play politics" with him, he would "welcome the challenge." Upon information and belief, Judge Clouse and Mr. Cozen ultimately did not speak about the matter.19. Later in the spring of 2004, Judge Clouse retained Richard A. Sprague, Esquire, for the purpose of bringing suit against Plaintiff and Andy Lewis, Plaintiff's friend and political ally, to allege that they had defamed him in the course of objecting to his political activities.
20. Mr. Sprague contacted Patrick O'Connor to complain about Plaintiff's political activities, and, upon information and belief, told Mr. O'Connor that if Plaintiff were not fired, he would include the Firm in the suit.
21. Mr. O'Connor instead told Plaintiff that she was henceforward prohibited from using any "Firm resources" in connection with her political activities.
Later, it says Biswanger "thought of the 'preservation of evidence' letter as a prudent litigation move, not a political activity." And it then levels this accusation:
Upon information and belief, Mr. Cozen, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Berry perceived politically active women as aggressive, overbearing, and unattractive, and therefore a detriment to the Firm. Further, upon information and belief and observation, Mr. Cozen, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Berry prefer and promote women who fit traditional female stereotypes of being attractive, compliant, and mild-mannered, a standard that is not applied to male attorneys.33. In contrast, Mr. Cozen, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Berry had no objection to the widespread, aggressive, controversial and continuing and/or deepening political involvement of numerous male attorneys at the Firm. To the contrary, they supported the political involvement of the Firm's male attorneys, financially and otherwise, whether the involvement was in local, state or national politics.
It goes on. We've put a call in to Cozen O'Connor, which has not yet filed its response in court.
Comments (1)
Legal antics on par of an immature fifth grade child are far more normative within the law firm culture than stumbles into public view. Nothing should be a surprise in a legal culture that, historically, discriminates against anyone - not just women - for any reason, large or small.
Sandra Day O'Connor once claimed that it took her 15 years to become established in the practice of law due to gender bias. Sadly, while the numbers of women in law have increased, women still fill marginal roles - often dutifully submissive to more established male cohorts. It is not infrequent to find men at counsel table with female lawyers serving as tertiary chairs indexing exhibits and keeping files in order, fetching the ever elusive brief or case book.
And the same scenario plays out in law offices proper. Women are crowned 'our expert on transportation issues' only to, more meaningfully, be relegated to brief research and memoranda writing - while the male cohorts actually appear in court and argue the cases.
True, it is not always the case. But it is an observation strikingly close to home.
While women have made inroads in President John Adams' grand 'Mining of Gold' profession, the tale of the financial tape can best be told by the sobering 2001 Findlaw.com survey of Philadelphia's law firms. Of all 'minorities', women fared the best. But if female, you best not be Black. Or Hispanic. And you dare not be 'Gay'. And God, Allah, Yahweh help us all, you better not be disabled - the most forelorn of all minorities in the legal realm.
Out of 233,000 disabled residents in Philadelphia, according to the Legal Clinic for the Disabled, Findlaw could find only 5 employed as legal counsel in Philadelphia's law firms - three associates, two partners. Non-equity partners at that? A fascinating question that Findlaw did not 'discriminate'.
Yes, legal kiddies, truth is stranger than fiction. Hardly any independent lawyer worth their salt has not had an irrate politician demand that they be fired - for something, if not just about anything. Failure to pay a salary kickback demand made by a colleague attorney because he/she referred you to a government salaried position? Ummm....when Financial Alice meets the Legal Wonderland, it's only a matter of time before a Mad Hatter proudly appears.
And, of course, there is the great legal political admonition that all honest attorneys are "going to be disbarred for THAT." Yes, the grand, ubiquitous 'that'. No one seems capable of defining it, just that you are going to be disbarred for it if you do not knuckle under to the whims of Mr. or Mrs. Politically Connected with J.D.
Intimidating, no?
Honesty is the best policy, Ms. Biswanger. And remember, when push comes to legal shove, all those pretty images and juicy salaries are really just so much political 'fois gras' - a fancy name, a fancy image, a simpler reality. Chopped liver anyone?
Posted by Carl J. Roeder, Esq. | September 21, 2007 11:41 PM
Posted on September 21, 2007 23:41