Late last night, a former associate took to LinkedIn to accuse a Covington partner of calling him a racial slur. Paul Bryant, a former fifth-year corporate associate at Covington, claims that a partner engaged in this racial harassment in an effort to get Bryant to quit after he informed the firm that he “would not write SEC disclosures in support of anti-minority and anti-women based initiatives.” It’s not clear why the firm would try to convince someone to quit when they could simply fire them. Announcing a conscientious objection to performing firm work, while noble, provides relatively straightforward grounds for dismissal. The post says he was later fired after trying to discuss the issue further.
“The allegations made by Mr. Bryant against the firm and its partners are categorically false and repugnant,” Covington wrote in response to our inquiry about the post. “The firm will vigorously defend itself and our colleagues and intends to explore all available remedies in response to these outrageous claims.”
Since his first post, Bryant has asked for a $30 million settlement but also said he’s not going to federal court and imposed a deadline of tomorrow morning or “I will solicit the help of the President, Donald J. Trump to strike an adequate deal with Covington…. It is actually my faith that the Commander-In-Chief will hear of this story and provide the leverage I need to effect needed change in your system, a system which the President has rightfully began to investigate.” For the record, Trump actually targeted Covington already — they didn’t cave and signed the amicus brief supporting the firms fighting back. Bryant’s since announced that he’s “hereby delegating my power of attorney” to a retired Covington partner.
Not sure about this strategy. While he’s undoubtedly succeeded in extracting concessions from Biglaw firms, I kinda think Trump might have something to do with all those “anti-minority and anti-women based initiatives” that corporations have started pursuing and I’m positive that when he “began to investigate” Biglaw, it wasn’t about making it a more welcoming workplace.
But this speaks to how this story took off on social media. There’s a genuine fear about this moment in Biglaw. Companies increasingly embrace discriminatory policies to appease the administration and that’s the work that Biglaw attorneys are asked to paper up. Making minority and women attorneys cogs in the engine of discrimination is a cruel twist. The firms themselves — even the ones who didn’t openly surrender to the administration — are destroying diversity programs, scrubbing their websites, and turning down pro bono work that clashes with the whims of a white nationalist White House. As firms jettison norms at the slightest hint of crossing the administration, there’s real fear that at its core, this industry is just a place where racial slurs get tossed around and no one does anything about it.
Bryant’s lack of faith in his employment attorney’s settlement advice and wariness of the objectivity of the federal courts resonates with anyone losing confidence in the institutions that are supposed to protect people.
Whatever happened in this specific case, it says something about where we are that this post struck a chord with so many people. The damage done by the firms and clients who’ve spent the last six months selling out principles for expediency has spilled over into free-floating distrust. And this profession can’t thrive without baseline trust.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Former Biglaw Associate Alleges Partner Used Racial Slur appeared first on Above the Law.