Biglaw

The First Biglaw Firm To Willingly Do Away With Its Mandatory Arbitration Policy

Is this the beginning of a new era of transparency in Biglaw for sexual harassment claims?

By
on

Less than 24 hours after one Biglaw firm was forced to scrap its mandatory arbitration policy due to social media outrage, another firm has stepped forward to voluntarily do so, as a leader of change for women in the workplace.

Yesterday afternoon, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe announced that it would no longer require any of its employees, including associates, to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. “Orrick has decided that it’s time for us to make a change,” the firm said in a statement given to Above the Law. Mitchell Zuklie, Orrick’s chairman, said, “We listened to the conversation on this issue and realized it was time for us to make a change. We’re very focused on being a best place to work for the best talent, and that means taking a fresh, forward-thinking look at everything we do.” Orrick, a firm that already offers unprecedented benefits to its attorneys, has just cemented its role as a pacesetter for all other Biglaw firms in the country now that it’s offering one of the biggest benefits of all: freedom from mandatory arbitration.

All too often, arbitration is used to control and silence victims of sexual harassment, and it’s high time that a Biglaw firm acknowledges that. However, if an employee does bring a claim, only then will Orrick offer the option of opting in to arbitration, because the firm believes that it may be “advantageous to the employee.” Here’s more from the firm’s statement on the retraction of its mandatory arbitration policy:

We have been reviewing our sexual harassment policies generally in response to the #metoo conversation and as part of our commitment to being a best place to work and attracting the best talent. Munger Tolles’ announcement over the weekend, and the conversation around it, prompted us to accelerate our review of our use of mandatory arbitration (we did not have a non-disclosure clause).

Orrick’s new policy will be applied retroactively to everyone at the firm, save partners (which is admittedly disappointing, given the number of gender bias claims that have been brought forward by female partners and scuttled into arbitration). If an employee signed a mandatory arbitration agreement in the past, they will no longer be bound by it in light of the firm’s new policy.

Congratulations to Orrick on being the first Biglaw firm to allow its employees to have their day in court when it comes to sexual harassment in the #MeToo era. Time is up, and this firm has turned over the hourglass to give women another chance. We’ll have to wait and see if any additional firms are willing to follow in Orrick’s footsteps.

How many Biglaw firms are forcing employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, sending disputes into private tribunals beyond the prying eyes of the media or courts? We’ve already heard from several people whose firms required them to sign such documents, but they can’t speak out alone for fear of losing their jobs. There is power in numbers, and here at Above the Law, we’re more than happy to serve as your voice in a force for good. If you know of any other law firms that require their employees to submit to mandatory arbitration, please email us at or text us at (646) 820-8477. With your help, we’ll soon be able to compile a list of all the firms that still require mandatory arbitration, along with all the firms that have welcomed a new day of transparency and ditched these antiquated agreements.

Sponsored

Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky has been an editor at Above the Law since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , ,