On ‘Glorified Paralegal Work’ and False Promises of Dealmaking

[WSJ_law_blog]

During one call-back interview at a New York law firm, the Law Blog suffered a bruising defeat. In the string of interviews, the first partner — a bank lawyer — glanced at our resume and saw that, years prior, we’d taken a screenwriting class. He asked the Law Blog if we were interested in screenwriting. We said we were. He said that, if we wanted to “write scripts” or “become an apprentice to Steven Spielberg,” then we’d come to the wrong place. The firm, he said, was interested in training lawyers who wanted to be lawyers.

We appreciated his candor (and, ultimately, his foresight). Particularly because we know that, in interviews, lots of promises can get made — Wanna be an IP lawyer? No problem, we do all kinds of copyright work here. Flex-time? Absolutely. — and it’s not always clear what they count for.

As the trusty AmLaw Daily blog reports, one former Dechert lawyer is eager to find out. Marc Lubin, reports AmLaw, jumped from Skadden to Dechert in 2002 because, according to a complaint he filed in New York state court last week, he felt “he should be gaining greater experience in a wider variety of structured finance deals.” Apparently, that never happened.

In the suit, Lubin reportedly alleges that Dechert exaggerated the extent of its corporate work in order to woo him, did not provide the touted opportunities, and then fired him in part because he is an Orthodox Jew. He says that when he decided to take the Dechert job, he turned down two other job offers and took a 20 percent pay cut from his $215,000 Skadden salary. He seeks nearly $6 million in back pay, lost earnings, and punitive damages.

Once he started at Dechert, Lubin claims, the lone deal the firm was involved in at the time soon collapsed, leaving him to do “glorified paralegal work.” Then, in 2004, he was fired because the firm didn’t like his work.

When Lubin pressed for written evidence of the firm’s displeasure, a partner told him there was none and added that Lubin “was different.” Lubin “understood this categorization to refer to his religious status as an Orthodox Jew, which required him to eat kosher food and precluded his attendance at various firm functions, including the then recent Christmas party.”

Dechert declined to comment to AmLaw on the suit.