Jenkens Scoop

[inagadadavida]

lots of lawyers are listed twice, as practicing in more than one section. one is listed 3 times. don't know if you caught that when counting.

do they take people off as soon as they give notice, or not until they are out the door? the lawyers in the d.c. office are still listed, but i read on one of these boards that they all quit.

[TJ!]

Yes, tricksy Jenkenessss, sneaky, filthy...
[/golem voice]

Yes, we always eliminate the duplicates. Surpisingly, they have been very good about immediately removing attorneys who leave from the website. And given the attrition rate in the past few years, they must have a small army dedicated solely to removing leaving attorney names.

The franchise people are still on there because their official last day is tomorrow. My count in the last post excluded them anyway.

Originally posted by TJ!
Yes, tricksy Jenkenessss, sneaky, filthy...

"... For Texas-based law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist, this has meant the establishment of a "Homeland Security Legal Team" of about 23 lawyers among its national staff of 500."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met....5cbc9a64.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticle...=1078368982982
(may need subscription)

alternate link

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040316/a737...f804946_1.html


some highlights:

" Cantrill became managing shareholder in January, succeeding William Durbin, who stepped down just weeks after he was re-elected. Durbin was re-elected last fall to a third one-year term as chairman and chief executive officer of Jenkens, but he said in January he resigned from the post to return to his practice full time.

Durbin says Jenkens shareholders did not ask him to step down from the chairmanship. He says he and an ad hoc group of shareholders had a discussion after his re-election about leadership at the firm and they decided it was best to have a new leader. "


"The firm expanded dramatically under Laney's watch. Jenkens grew from 425 lawyers on April 1, 1999, to 627 lawyers on April 1, 2001, but slipped to 518 lawyers two years later, and 466 today."


"Joyce Mazaro, who previously led Jenkens' franchise and distribution practice, and six other lawyers from Dallas and Washington, D.C., announced they were joining Haynes and Boone on March 15. Also on March 5, three shareholders in the financial institutions practice group in Washington, D.C., left Jenkens to join Luce Lehman Gorman Pomerenk & Schick on March 8."


"The harsh reality for Jenkens is that the D.C. office just became even smaller in terms of lawyers. For the firm, the arithmetic isn't pretty. Only seven revenue-producing lawyers now occupy spaced leased for 16 in the downtown D.C. office, Cantrill confirms."

from the other board

Kandice Bridges v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, a Professional Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-495-G (N.D. Tex.). The Complaint was filed last week.


anyone have any info like who is representing Ms. Bridges, etc.?

[inagadadavida]

Bridges atty: Rhonda Cates, Lyon Gorsky Baskett Haring Gilbert & Cates, Dallas, TX

Have reviewed complaint but can't get pdf to post. Allegations, if true, are extraordinarily ugly. Don't know what kind of damages she can get (no allegation of IIED, just 14th amend and Title VII), but if 1/10th of it is true (child born prematurely), I'd hang the bastards. Those in the labor law biz, enlighten us on the damages she can get!

This must be the lawsuit the boards were hinting around at when the V&E thing hit the fan. Wonder how many ex J&G will come out of the woodwork as witnesses on this one? So many have axes to grind....

Originally posted by inagadadavida

This must be the lawsuit the boards were hinting around at when the V&E thing hit the fan. Wonder how many ex J&G will come out of the woodwork as witnesses on this one? So many have axes to grind....

No, I am pretty sure I know exactly which suit the boards were hinting at during that time, and it wasn't about pregnancy discrimination. It was about harassment, and it was quite serious. I believe it has since been taken care of, however.

Good for Kandice for suing (if it's true, and I can't imagine why you'd commit professional suicide if you didn't seriously think you had a good claim).

Wow. I know Kandice, and she's a great gal. I didn't know she was suing, but I remember the hell she was going through before her son was born. I hope she gets them, and good.

Originally posted by Regional Anon
No, I am pretty sure I know exactly which suit the boards were hinting at during that time, and it wasn't about pregnancy discrimination. It was about harassment, and it was quite serious. I believe it has since been taken care of, however.

One of the problems in J&G according to one who remains is that the bulk of the shareholders are clueless as to the number of threats of suit this firm has had in the last 2-3 years. The board and the past chair has openly expressed the thought "that we don't need to tell them and if we do it will be all over the greedy associates boards in a few hours"--well folks it makes it here eventually any way so level with the real owners of the firm and let them know what is really going on!

[inagadadavida]

Regional anon: was the serious harassment suit you reference the one involving the female associate and Durbin's alleged nasty comments regarding her boyfriend's decision to terminate the relationship? If so, my sources say it got blown way out of proportion and that the associate involved doesn't have the best judgment (she complained internally, then showed up on one of these boards claiming it never happened).

My sources say discrimination is much more common than harassment.

If not, facts pleeeeeeze!

Originally posted by inagadadavida
Regional anon: was the serious harassment suit you reference the one involving the female associate and Durbin's alleged nasty comments regarding her boyfriend's decision to terminate the relationship? If so, my sources say it got blown way out of proportion and that the associate involved doesn't have the best judgment (she complained internally, then showed up on one of these boards claiming it never happened).

My sources say discrimination is much more common than harassment.

If not, facts pleeeeeeze!

No, the Durbin/summer associate debacle is not what I was referring to at all. I was referring to a sexual harassment situation that was so terrible, I am not going to post details. Basically, the associate suffered for far too long, even though it very likely that management knew what was going on. Em eventually reported, and after an investigation the equity partner (harasser and all-around bastard) had to leave. But the firm behaved pretty shitily during the whole thing. I think the associate is still there, so I am not going to post any details that might out em here.

And IMO, discrimination and harassment are usually close cousins.

[inagadadavida]

If said all-around bastard left to start his own firm in a specialized practice area, I'm not surprised, but I thought his indiscretions were focused on the secretaries.

A poster on the other board put a finger on what I was trying to express with discrimination vs harassment: I think the partners don't understand why women would leave their children and work, when their own dingy trophy wives lounge at the club. They would never hit on the moms that work for them, but they will treat them like sh*t.

[Freakin' NA]

Moved to Firm and Salary Info Thread

Moot

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1080681913906

"As alleged in her complaint, later on the same day as her evaluation -- "in which she endured over 45 minutes of being berated by her supervisor in the presence of a member of Jenkens' board of directors"

It would be interesting to know which member of the Board of J&G it was. It is interesting that spokesperson put forward is one of the newest member of the board and not one of "the old guard" at J&G and also not a person in the EIRSA section of the firm.