As
Perkins
Coie
and
Ashurst
advance
toward
their
upcoming
merger,
it
provides
both
firms
an
opportunity
to
reflect
on
their
own
calcified
practices
and
embrace
change
where
needed.
Like,
for
example,
how
the
new
firm
might
handle
a
hypothetical
situation
where
a
female
associate
is
subjected
to
sexual
rumors
spread
by
partners.
The
sort
of
situation
where
the
woman
receives
emails
from
her
supervising
partner’s
husband
with
subject
lines
like
“Greetings,
sad
people,”
that
begin
“I
don’t
know
which
of
you
two
nitwits
is
more
to
blame….”
Unfortunately,
this
isn’t
as
hypothetical
as
one
would
hope.
On
LinkedIn,
Perkins
Coie
counsel
Breanna
Philips
expressed
her
hope
that
the
merger
between
her
firm
and
Ashurst
will
bring
some
soul-searching
and
tangible
change
in
managing
hostile
work
environments.
Per
Philips’s
own
account,
here
is
the
rough
timeline.
In
September
2025,
a
female
partner
who
was
Philips’s
direct
supervisor
allegedly
started
a
rumor
that
Philips
had
been
sexually
assaulted
by
a
male
partner
in
another
group.
That
rumor
resulted,
Philips
says,
in
a
closed-door
meeting
—
“held
without
notice,”
per
the
email
Philips
sent
firm
leadership
in
January
—
in
which
the
male
partner
in
question
asked
Philips
about
her
sexual
history.
There
is
approximately
no
version
of
HR
training
that
recommends
that
response.
Philips
reported
both
the
rumor
and
the
closed-door
meeting
to
HR.
“I
was
concerned
that
request
might
not
be
taken
seriously,
so
I
escalated
to
a
more
senior
HR
representative
a
few
days
later,”
Philips
writes.
“And
a
third
HR
representative
joined
shortly
after
to
lead
the
investigation.”
Despite
this,
Philips
just
waited.
A
month
later,
in
October,
the
husband
of
the
supervising
partner
—
who
was
himself
a
former
Perkins
partner
—
sent
the
aforementioned
“greetings,
sad
people”
email
to
Philips’s
work
account.
Quick
housekeeping:
the
firm
has
noted
that
all
the
partners
involved
have
left,
though
Philips’s
account
makes
clear
that
the
female
partner
accused
of
starting
the
rumors
was
still
her
supervisor
when
this
happened,
and
Bloomberg
reports
the
female
partner
left
“of
her
own
accord
due
to
an
unrelated
reason.”
The
email
itself
—
you
can
read
it
in
full
(with
names
redacted)
—
accuses
Philips
and
another
Perkins
lawyer
of
spreading
the
rumor
that
the
husband
was
“having,
or
interested
in
having,
an
affair.”
The
partner’s
husband
insists
that
an
affair
with
him
would
be
“about
as
plausible
as
my
being
one
of
the
people
who
robbed
the
Louvre,”
which
is
a
bizarre
tonal
shift
in
such
a
confrontational
email.
He
then
suggests
Philips
and
her
colleague
are
“needy,
gossipy
vampires”
who
“suck
the
life
out
of”
his
wife.
He
recommends
that
Philips
read
David
Foster
Wallace’s
“The
Depressed
Person”
—
perhaps
the
most
stuck-in-the-90s-Pacific-Northwest
advice
ever
—
and
“stop
emulating
it.”
The
male
senior
lawyer
also
expresses
his
hope
that
the
email
humiliates
the
junior
female
lawyer
—
“If
receiving
this
is
humiliating
or
embarrassing
for
you,
if
it
makes
you
scared
or
feel
shame,
that’s
good.
It
should.”
—
and
signs
off
“Sincerely
(more
sincere
than
you
can
possibly
imagine).”
Where
did
this
rumor
come
from?
According
to
the
Philips
account:
I
called
the
sender
and
the
female
partner
immediately.
He
told
me
that
during
a
marital
spat,
she
accused
him
of
having
an
affair—an
idea
she
later
tried
to
blame
on
another
associate,
also
copied
on
the
email.
When
he
asked
her
who
the
affair
was
supposedly
with,
she
named
me.
As
she
explains
“my
direct
supervisor
had
now
sexualized
me
two
times
(first
the
assault
rumor,
second,
the
affair
lie),”
which
seems
to
be
an
accurate
characterization
of
those
alleged
facts.
This
is
why
firms
have
HR
departments.
Philips
claims
HR
told
her
to
“do
nothing”
and
she
took
that
as
an
indication
that
it
was
being
handled
by
personnel.
Apparently,
it
wasn’t.
By
January,
Philips
had
had
enough
and
sent
a
January
21
email
to
HR,
employment
counsel,
and
several
firm
leaders.
The
email
listed
seven
specific
items
she
expected
the
firm
to
address,
including
the
September
rumor,
the
closed-door
meeting
in
which
a
partner
asked
her
about
her
sexual
history,
and
“the
firm’s
decision
to
let
[the
husband
partner]
attend
the
Christmas
party
this
year,
despite
knowing
of
his
harassing
messages.”
She
requested
a
written
response
by
January
28,
but
also
WAIT,
THEY
LET
THE
GUY
GO
TO
THE
HOLIDAY
PARTY!
That
seems…
problematic.
According
to
Philips,
only
after
this
email
did
the
firm
tell
her
a
third-party
investigator
would
be
retained,
and
the
outside
investigator
first
contacted
her
on
February
27
—
roughly
five
months
after
she
first
reported
the
rumor.
Perkins
Coie
provided
a
statement
to
Bloomberg:
“Perkins
Coie
has
long
sought
to
foster
an
inclusive
workplace
that
values
a
broad
array
of
perspectives,
backgrounds,
and
experiences,”
the
firm
said
Thursday.
“When
an
employee
raises
a
concern
with
HR,
it
is
fully
investigated,
including
in
some
cases
by
a
third
party,
and
appropriate
action
taken.”
Sort
of
glosses
over
the
five-month
lag.
And
that’s
the
assessment
Philips
makes
in
another
LinkedIn
post,
noting
her
“concern
is
not
whether
outside
investigators
are
ever
used;
it
is
that
a
prompt,
neutral
investigation
did
not
happen
here.
That
distinction
matters.”
It
does.
Honestly,
if
there’s
a
silver
lining
here,
it’s
that
Philips
still
works
at
Perkins
Coie
and
was,
in
fact,
promoted
to
counsel
in
January.
That
should
not
be
remarkable,
but
unfortunately,
corporate
America
is
littered
with
stories
of
junior
female
employees
getting
tagged
with
some
sort
of
previously
undisclosed
“performance
issue”
and
nudged
out
the
door
as
companies
move
to
shield
managers.
The
response
described
in
these
posts
is
unacceptable,
but
it
could
have
been
much
worse.
The
tie-up
with
Ashurst
will
produce
a
roughly
$2.8
billion,
3,000-lawyer
transatlantic
operation.
“Seem
reasonable
to
require
accountability
amongst
partners
and
HR
personnel?”
as
Philips
puts
it
to
Ashurst.
“Certainly
seems
to
be
less
monetary
exposure
in
doing
so.”
As
for
suggestions,
she
writes:
At
a
minimum,
these
questions
should
be
asked:
1.
Is
there
an
internal
SOP
for
investigating
complaints,
and
will
the
firm
commit
to
making
a
copy
available?
2.
What
disciplinary
action
exists
for
misconduct,
and
is
application
discretionary
or
structured?
3.
Will
the
firm
commit
to
supplying
partners
with
demographic
data
for
recent
firings?
She
addressed
these
to
her
own
future
firm,
but
these
should
be
questions
every
law
firm
takes
a
second
to
make
sure
they
know
how
to
answer.
Because
law
firms
are
a
lot
closer
to
hosting
a
hostile
work
environment
than
they
think.
Perkins
Coie
Hires
Investigator
for
Counsel’s
Harassment
Claims
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Earlier:
The
Next
Transatlantic
Biglaw
Heavyweight:
Ashurst
Ties
The
Knot
With
Perkins
Coie
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.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.