First Year Associate Fired After Telling Partners He Had A 'Superior Legal Mind' Sues Firm For $77 Million
from the creative-legal-strategies dept
Lawyers filing lawsuits on their own behalf are always interesting specimen. Witness the case of Gregory Berry, a recent graduate of UPenn's law school, who got a job at big law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman. Like most first year associates, he was given work that wasn't all that interesting, but that's the life of a first year associate at a big law firm. Mr. Berry decided to take it upon himself to shake things up and sent an email to some partners talking up his "superior legal mind," compared to others at the firm and asking for more important work to focus on. This came a few months after he had already been reprimanded over a separate incident concerning his (perhaps reasonable) inability to work on a particular case (he claimed he was too busy on other cases). Either way, the firm decided that Mr. Berry was best suited elsewhere, gave him a severance package and even let him hang onto his work email, voicemail and secretarial answering service for a while. Hell, to make it easier for him to find another job, they even told him he could keep his bio on the website.So he turned around and sued the firm along with a partner and an associate he felt were instrumental in his firing... for $77 million.
The email that pushed the firm over the edge read, in part:
It has become clear that the only limiting factor on how much value I am to a case is how much responsibility I am given: the more responsibility I am given, the better the outcome. I am in kind of an uncomfortable position at the firm because although I am a “first year,” I have 15 years business and real world experience, as much as many senior associates. When I first got here I did not know what to expect, but after working here for several months now it has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met.A partner explained to Berry that this email had "upset" some partners and that it had "burned bridges" at the firm. A few days later, he was fired.
Reading the case itself is hilarious and highly recommended. Basically, it sounds like any very typical office situation where there's a minor dispute, but Berry plays up each action. He also plays up his own abilities. My favorite line is this one:
After conquering Silicon Valley, he decided to take his talents in a new direction, and in 2007 began law school at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia, PAI also like how he portrays a pretty standard move. After he told an (more senior) associate that he probably was too busy to work on her project, she forwarded his email to a partner. But, look at the way Berry tells the story:
Mr. Berry’s communications were, as Ms. Conroy knew, entirely proper under the duties of his employment. Upon information and belief, refusing her project nonetheless angered Ms. Conroy and she lashed out by maliciously "reporting" Mr. Berry's e-mail to Mr. Marks.Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if every time an employee complained about another employee, it was deemed to have "no purpose other than to interfere" with someone's employment? And, I'm now planning to use "such vindictiveness is outside the scope of your employment" as much as possible in future conversations.
Such vindictiveness is outside the scope of Ms. Conroy’s employment.
Complaining to Mr. Marks had no purpose other than to harm Mr. Berry and interfere with his employment.
Oh, and after he got fired and went through all of this, he still wrote the partners at the firm to ask for a letter of recommendation.
While he's now set up his own law firm, where he advertises "creative and cutting-edge legal strategies," he claims in the lawsuit that the firing will cost him $2.55 million in "lost income." Then there's an additional $25 million for "emotional distress" and the harm to his career and reputation. Finally, another $50 million in punitive damages. Just because.
I am curious, of course, which thing people think will damage his reputation more. Getting fired by a big law firm... or then turning around suing that firm for $77 million?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contracts, employment, lawsuits, legal minds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They gave him what he asked for!
The firm gave him 100% responsibility, for finding his cases, for trying his cases, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you
I like his way of thinking. Clearly a case can be made on anything, and he has just gotten himself a whole bunch of free publicity. Remember, it's better to be infamous than unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you
I like his way of thinking. Clearly a case can be made on anything, and he has just gotten himself a whole bunch of free publicity. Remember, it's better to be infamous than unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank you
It's sorta like a twisted lottery, except the odds are often stacked in favor of the villain. This is especially true for those who sue for infringement, the villain being the plaintiff and the victims being those who infringe, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with infringing. There is something morally wrong with preventing others from infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd be afraid to have him as my lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd be afraid to have him as my lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd be afraid to have him as my lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd be afraid to have him as my lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd be afraid to have him as my lawyer
Martin Sheen has been arrested 66 times. That’s real winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he's willing to sue an employer, he's a bad risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If he's willing to sue an employer, he's a bad risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If he's willing to sue an employer, he's a bad risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If he's willing to sue an employer, he's a bad risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting edge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing I am concerned about is that you need someone to “own” the doc review. I am more than happy to help, it’s a necessary evil, but I need to temper the expectation that it can consume my time, preventing me from doing my real work. Maybe we can find a first year that would benefit more from this opportunity?
Now, I've never stepped foot in a law school, but even *I* know that telling a managing attorney that helping her on her case is a "necessary evil" and not "real work" are severely career-limiting moves.
Perhaps his Superior Legal Mind™ was so full of grandiose legal theories that there was no room left for common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do it yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do it yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now quit wasting our time and money by getting a real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best thing that could happen
Sometimes you have to go overboard and smash 'superior legal minds' with a mountain. It's the only way they'll ever learn. If they don't, hey at least you got to enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone feels a need to tell you that they have a "superior mind" then you can be pretty sure that they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he were to win, I would be inclined to believe that he has a 'Superior Legal Mind'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if I'm right, our legal system is screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Is What It Is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narcissism redefined!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"?
Wasn't there a time when being a lawyer was an honorable thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how will they defend themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could have already been said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As another "Superior Mind" once said....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That right there is how crookes are born.
This guy is broken psychologically, he has no emotional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm more curious how a first year law associate figures that, as a result of getting himself fired by insulting management, he is owed $2.55 million in lost income while he would only be making, at best, $90k/year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]