David, thank you for your comprehensive and analytical coverage of this disturbing and, frankly, outrageous matter. I find Lewis Brisbois's statements on the matter to be severely lacking in substance and in empathy, though I am not surprised. I also have personally heard allegations, from several people who have interviewed in the past with the firm, about derogatory comments made to them about their Jewish heritage and/or involvement with Jewish student groups in law school, so the firm has a bigger problem on their hands than just several bad apples. I am disheartened, disappointed, and, most sadly of all, not entirely surprised about this entire sordid affair.
Here’s what gets me: this kind of behavior absolutely screws colleagues, particularly younger ones.
The LAT (sorry, that’s L.A. Times, not Lat) reporting suggests that LB found many occasions on which these two asswipes copied colleagues — including both other partners and associates — on this stuff. So now you’ve put your colleagues in a shitty position — do they say something to stop it, and deal with the falllout of that, or shut up, and risk being tarred with it in the (likely) event it eventually comes out?
That’s bad enough for colleagues with similar or equal power but terrible for associates. An associate has to decide between speaking up, reasonably fearing that will destroy their career at the firm and put them on the blacklist of the douchey fratbrahs, or else risk having their career tainted later when the emails come out. It’s just a terrible way to treat your colleagues and underlings, ASIDE from the issue of what a shitty way it is to act.
The legal community is a lot less of a scummy fratbrah culture than it was 30 years ago but there are still pockets of trash.
"significant pro bono work or non-legal community service is definitely in order."
Disagree. These guys don't strike me as having the temperament to be zealous advocates for most pro bono clients. And it demeans the professional integrity of pro bono work to suggest that they should do it because it would be somehow good *for them.*
What they should go into doing is plaintiff-side work fighting their former clients or would-have-been clients. When you're hiring somebody to fight for you, you often affirmatively *want* somebody with a history of playing for the opposing team. Like when FDR got Joe Kennedy to head the SEC, you need a crook to catch a crook, etc.
B&R can expiate their sins by working day and night to extract real money for the victims of similar conduct. And it can happen with the dignity of an arm's length transaction, as opposed to a pro bono client accepting legal services at the grace of somebody she presumes (probably rightly) to regard her with contempt.
That’s a good idea; I thought about that as a possibility too. They would just have to convince clients to trust them, despite their emails—since there’s a decent chance a plaintiff belongs to some group they’ve maligned. Also, they don’t have to do legal work—I mentioned non-legal community service too.
"If I were in their shoes, and assuming I had the financial wherewithal, I’d retire from Biglaw completely, devoting my remaining years on the planet to public service." Noble words, which echo the decision of John Profumo in the wake of the Profumo Affair. After his affair with a 19 year old model (who was also sleeping with a Soviet spy) and subsequent false denial to Parliament brought down Prime Minister Macmillan, Profumo spent the rest of his life as a volunteer at Toynbee Hall, feeding the poor.
The only thing that I know for certain about the future is that it has not happened yet. So it is possible that either John Barber or Jeff Ranen will take your advice. But, in the words of my friend Ken White, "t'aint likely." There is nothing in the public lives of John Barber or Jeff Ranen that leads me to believe that either will be transformed by this experience into anything other than the people that their emails revealed them to be.
1. I write about law firm partners, Supreme Court justices (and clerks), other federal judges, and law professors (and students). My beat as a journalist is “legal elites.” So I’d be the last person to claim I write about world-threatening problems; I write about the problems of very privileged people. I realize there are more noble careers I could be pursuing, but this is where I’ve wound up, so I just try to do my job as well as I can.
2. This topic is the top story at all of my peer/competitor outlets, so of course I had to write about it. I’m not a politics writer, so I have no reason to write about Biden controversies or scandals (unless they relate to the legal profession—which is very specific, distinct from being merely “law-related”).
For folks who are more interested interested in discussions of legal doctrine rather than the legal industry, check out the excellent Advisory Opinions podcast (where I just served as a guest host):
I do not know who else cares, but I do. And, for someone who espouses not to care, you sure seem to be spending a lot of time lurking on this thread (with two (2) comments).
In the words of Erik B. & Rakim, "I ain't no joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TN-kDEKxF0). I authentically wonder whether you are a joke -- a performance artist a la Andy Kaufman or Marina Abramovich. If this "Franklin Carroll" is a piece of performance art, then bravo!
I do not see anyone suggesting that this is "the biggest problem in law." It is, however, a problem.
If you are referring to my service as an AUSA, my work was not securities fraud. Rather, my intake areas were sex trafficking, involuntary servitude and child sexual abuse material. I also prosecuted narcotics offenses, particularly kilo-level heroin dealers, and firearms offenses (primarily felon-in-possession).
I have to believe that Franklin Carroll is a performance artist, doing a mocking impression of a MAGA troll. I cannot believe an authentic MAGA troll would write such self-evidently stupid things. Andy Kaufman would be proud to have created a character as ridiculous as “Franklin Carroll”.
I like it that hte post has constructive suggestions as to how these guys should spend the rest of their life. I would guess that they weren't very happy in Biglaw--remember, they felt they had to start their own firm. This scandal could be just what they need to achieve a happy and satisfying life. They needed a kick in the behind and they've gotten it. Now they may either choose virtue--- which aggressive guys like them can "do" very well and joyfully--- or daytrading and alcoholism. It will be interesting to see which.
If Barber and Ranen talked like this in their emails, surely they talked that way in person too while at Lewis Brisbois. And I doubt very much if any of their colleagues there objected to their face. If they really cared, they would have told them to watch their language. Obscenity should not be a firing offense the first time it happens, though I would very much like to see a return to the politer language of a hundred years ago.
Releasing the emails now is an obvious act of vengeance. I wonder if Barber and Ranen have any emails from their former colleagues that they are going to release? Perhaps they even have recordings-- I don't know if they were practising in a one-party-consent state. The profession may have fun with this for quite a while.
Good writeup. On question that will almost assuredly betray some ignorance on my part: is calling looters “savages” even close to on par with the rest of the highlighted emails in terms of impropriety? That struck me as a “one of these things is not like the other” situation, but I’m probably wrong.
I am a dinosaur. I have been fortunate to be taught and mentored by some of the greatest members of our profession. Ellen Peters, Alexander Bickel, Ralph Winter, Louis Pollak, Clyde Summers, H.L.A. Hart, Mark Freedland, Otto Kahn-Freund, J. Skelly Wright, Byron White, Charles J. Queenan Jr. and many others. I would include David Lat especially through his writings as part of my mentoring process over the years. (David may not wish to be associated with me in that way, but it’s true.). Most are deceased. The degrading radiations of this episode stretch back beyond the grave. We’re all dishonored.The profession just can’t turn away from this situation.It’s a stain all can see, including the iconic figures not now with us. The responsible individuals should be identified by name in law schools across the country. An apology will not suffice.
I am in agreement with other comments about how reprehensible this behavior is/was, and these offensive emails reveal exactly who they are. There is no coming back from this. I am more curious as to whether the clients will drop the firm entirely. I can't imagine the clients would want to be associated with this stench.
David, thank you for your comprehensive and analytical coverage of this disturbing and, frankly, outrageous matter. I find Lewis Brisbois's statements on the matter to be severely lacking in substance and in empathy, though I am not surprised. I also have personally heard allegations, from several people who have interviewed in the past with the firm, about derogatory comments made to them about their Jewish heritage and/or involvement with Jewish student groups in law school, so the firm has a bigger problem on their hands than just several bad apples. I am disheartened, disappointed, and, most sadly of all, not entirely surprised about this entire sordid affair.
Here’s what gets me: this kind of behavior absolutely screws colleagues, particularly younger ones.
The LAT (sorry, that’s L.A. Times, not Lat) reporting suggests that LB found many occasions on which these two asswipes copied colleagues — including both other partners and associates — on this stuff. So now you’ve put your colleagues in a shitty position — do they say something to stop it, and deal with the falllout of that, or shut up, and risk being tarred with it in the (likely) event it eventually comes out?
That’s bad enough for colleagues with similar or equal power but terrible for associates. An associate has to decide between speaking up, reasonably fearing that will destroy their career at the firm and put them on the blacklist of the douchey fratbrahs, or else risk having their career tainted later when the emails come out. It’s just a terrible way to treat your colleagues and underlings, ASIDE from the issue of what a shitty way it is to act.
The legal community is a lot less of a scummy fratbrah culture than it was 30 years ago but there are still pockets of trash.
"significant pro bono work or non-legal community service is definitely in order."
Disagree. These guys don't strike me as having the temperament to be zealous advocates for most pro bono clients. And it demeans the professional integrity of pro bono work to suggest that they should do it because it would be somehow good *for them.*
What they should go into doing is plaintiff-side work fighting their former clients or would-have-been clients. When you're hiring somebody to fight for you, you often affirmatively *want* somebody with a history of playing for the opposing team. Like when FDR got Joe Kennedy to head the SEC, you need a crook to catch a crook, etc.
B&R can expiate their sins by working day and night to extract real money for the victims of similar conduct. And it can happen with the dignity of an arm's length transaction, as opposed to a pro bono client accepting legal services at the grace of somebody she presumes (probably rightly) to regard her with contempt.
That’s a good idea; I thought about that as a possibility too. They would just have to convince clients to trust them, despite their emails—since there’s a decent chance a plaintiff belongs to some group they’ve maligned. Also, they don’t have to do legal work—I mentioned non-legal community service too.
This is a really fantastic write-up. Thank you so much.
"If I were in their shoes, and assuming I had the financial wherewithal, I’d retire from Biglaw completely, devoting my remaining years on the planet to public service." Noble words, which echo the decision of John Profumo in the wake of the Profumo Affair. After his affair with a 19 year old model (who was also sleeping with a Soviet spy) and subsequent false denial to Parliament brought down Prime Minister Macmillan, Profumo spent the rest of his life as a volunteer at Toynbee Hall, feeding the poor.
The only thing that I know for certain about the future is that it has not happened yet. So it is possible that either John Barber or Jeff Ranen will take your advice. But, in the words of my friend Ken White, "t'aint likely." There is nothing in the public lives of John Barber or Jeff Ranen that leads me to believe that either will be transformed by this experience into anything other than the people that their emails revealed them to be.
1. I write about law firm partners, Supreme Court justices (and clerks), other federal judges, and law professors (and students). My beat as a journalist is “legal elites.” So I’d be the last person to claim I write about world-threatening problems; I write about the problems of very privileged people. I realize there are more noble careers I could be pursuing, but this is where I’ve wound up, so I just try to do my job as well as I can.
2. This topic is the top story at all of my peer/competitor outlets, so of course I had to write about it. I’m not a politics writer, so I have no reason to write about Biden controversies or scandals (unless they relate to the legal profession—which is very specific, distinct from being merely “law-related”).
For folks who are more interested interested in discussions of legal doctrine rather than the legal industry, check out the excellent Advisory Opinions podcast (where I just served as a guest host):
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/david-et-david/
I give this petulant flounce 4/10
Mr. Carroll,
I do not know who else cares, but I do. And, for someone who espouses not to care, you sure seem to be spending a lot of time lurking on this thread (with two (2) comments).
In the words of Erik B. & Rakim, "I ain't no joke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TN-kDEKxF0). I authentically wonder whether you are a joke -- a performance artist a la Andy Kaufman or Marina Abramovich. If this "Franklin Carroll" is a piece of performance art, then bravo!
I do not see anyone suggesting that this is "the biggest problem in law." It is, however, a problem.
If you are referring to my service as an AUSA, my work was not securities fraud. Rather, my intake areas were sex trafficking, involuntary servitude and child sexual abuse material. I also prosecuted narcotics offenses, particularly kilo-level heroin dealers, and firearms offenses (primarily felon-in-possession).
I have to believe that Franklin Carroll is a performance artist, doing a mocking impression of a MAGA troll. I cannot believe an authentic MAGA troll would write such self-evidently stupid things. Andy Kaufman would be proud to have created a character as ridiculous as “Franklin Carroll”.
I had forgotten I worked at the San Diego office of Lewis Brisbois, for six months 20 years ago. It was that bad. Great article!
I like it that hte post has constructive suggestions as to how these guys should spend the rest of their life. I would guess that they weren't very happy in Biglaw--remember, they felt they had to start their own firm. This scandal could be just what they need to achieve a happy and satisfying life. They needed a kick in the behind and they've gotten it. Now they may either choose virtue--- which aggressive guys like them can "do" very well and joyfully--- or daytrading and alcoholism. It will be interesting to see which.
If Barber and Ranen talked like this in their emails, surely they talked that way in person too while at Lewis Brisbois. And I doubt very much if any of their colleagues there objected to their face. If they really cared, they would have told them to watch their language. Obscenity should not be a firing offense the first time it happens, though I would very much like to see a return to the politer language of a hundred years ago.
Releasing the emails now is an obvious act of vengeance. I wonder if Barber and Ranen have any emails from their former colleagues that they are going to release? Perhaps they even have recordings-- I don't know if they were practising in a one-party-consent state. The profession may have fun with this for quite a while.
Good writeup. On question that will almost assuredly betray some ignorance on my part: is calling looters “savages” even close to on par with the rest of the highlighted emails in terms of impropriety? That struck me as a “one of these things is not like the other” situation, but I’m probably wrong.
I agree with you that that comment didn't rise (or sink?) to the level of the others.
I am a dinosaur. I have been fortunate to be taught and mentored by some of the greatest members of our profession. Ellen Peters, Alexander Bickel, Ralph Winter, Louis Pollak, Clyde Summers, H.L.A. Hart, Mark Freedland, Otto Kahn-Freund, J. Skelly Wright, Byron White, Charles J. Queenan Jr. and many others. I would include David Lat especially through his writings as part of my mentoring process over the years. (David may not wish to be associated with me in that way, but it’s true.). Most are deceased. The degrading radiations of this episode stretch back beyond the grave. We’re all dishonored.The profession just can’t turn away from this situation.It’s a stain all can see, including the iconic figures not now with us. The responsible individuals should be identified by name in law schools across the country. An apology will not suffice.
I consider myself mentored by you as well, Peter! I have benefited so much over the years from your high-level, insider insights into the profession.
I am in agreement with other comments about how reprehensible this behavior is/was, and these offensive emails reveal exactly who they are. There is no coming back from this. I am more curious as to whether the clients will drop the firm entirely. I can't imagine the clients would want to be associated with this stench.