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.