By 2000 or so, McCarthys and the other Seven Sisters firms were in a hurry to get in on the IP game. LaCalamita, then an associate with Deeth, Williams, Wall, and her fellow boutique lawyers were suddenly in high demand. Bill Richardson, a successful litigator then in his 40s, was one of the senior partners building McCarthys’ IP litigation group. He first met with LaCalamita in 2001, and their personality differences must have been obvious from the start: Richardson is charming and gregarious, an outsize character at the firm; LaCalamita, while friendly and personable, is serious and sometimes quiet to the point of diffidence. Though she was intrigued by the prospect of working at McCarthys, she opted to follow Don Cameron, a former colleague and one of the premier IP practitioners in the city, to the smaller law firm Aird and Berlis. According to LaCalamita, when she declined Richardson’s offer, he told her the door would always be open at McCarthys, and that she should get back in touch in six months, if only to confirm that she’d made the right choice.
McCarthy Tétrault’s Toronto offices are in the TD towers, Mies van der Rohe’s ode to modernism (Image: Devin Jeffrey)
A year later, the IP litigation group at McCarthys was starting to take off. It would soon become one of the most profitable departments in the firm, bringing in millions of dollars a year. The group’s focus was pharmaceutical cases—the most lucrative type of litigation in the country—and it had recently landed Merck as a client. Richardson and his co-chair, Andy Reddon, had created a department very much in their likenesses. Richardson was the rainmaker; he spent most of his time out schmoozing with clients and wooing new business. The more cerebral but no less charming Reddon did the heavy lifting, overseeing files along with a junior partner named Steve Mason. The IP crew—especially the handsome duo of Reddon and Mason—were the firm’s golden boys. There were jokes about Reddon’s ability to charm judges during trials. The group was also extremely busy, so they decided to bring in another lawyer to help with the caseload. Through the legal recruitment firm ZSA, they were reconnected with LaCalamita.
For her, the call to join McCarthys came at the perfect time. She was in her late 30s, single, well established in her field and, after 10 years as an associate, in pursuit of a partnership position. Her friends say she was married to her work. She ran a full-service practice, covering a broad range of IP law and litigation—typical of a lawyer from a boutique firm background. LaCalamita welcomed the interest of McCarthys but had several reservations about joining the firm. At the core of her claim is a disagreement over what Richardson and Reddon did or didn’t promise her during the course of negotiations.
LaCalamita claims she made it clear that she wanted to continue the full scope of her IP practice, not just litigation, and that Richardson and Reddon told her she could, though she’d be classified as a litigator in her employment contract (for budgetary reasons). She also wanted a title that was commensurate with her experience, something on par with her future colleagues, and she wanted assurance that if she were to commit to McCarthys for the long-term, she would eventually be made a partner. At the time, she had offers from other firms: Heenan Blaikie, Faskin Martineau DuMoulin, and Ogilvy Renault, where her former IP colleagues at Aird and Berlis had recently moved and where she had been offered income partnership with the possibility of equity partnership within one year. (An income partner is a junior partner—one with the seniority of partnership but without a share in the firm’s profits.) She says she was told that, as a rule, McCarthys didn’t offer equity or income partner status to new hires, but that as a senior lateral hire, she would be given the title of “counsel,” which would not only reflect her experience but also shorten her path to equity partnership—an eventuality that was more or less guaranteed since the board would be relying on their recommendations.
With her experience and expertise in the niche drug regulatory field, LaCalamita expected to play a leading role in managing the firm’s existing pharmaceutical litigation files, as well as broaden the practice into non-pharmaceutical work that would put McCarthys on the map in the IP world. McCarthys offered her a starting salary of $200,000, plus bonuses. The opportunity was too good to refuse. She signed on as counsel on February 17, 2003, and started at the firm on March 10.
So much of this stuff she was supposed to get was promised verbally as opposed to getting it in writing in her f’ing contract. That’s dumb. Especially for a lawyer.
The article barely gets into the problems with her billing – which could have been a huge part of the problem they were having with her.
The article glosses over the fact that she “passive aggressively” did this or that and then, worst o all, at the beginning of the end, basically gave up on the job waiting to be packaged out.
There’s a professional and competent way to deal with problems you have with your employer or lot in life at the company. This article is a textbook example of how not to do it.
May 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm | by RidiculousRidiculoussssssssss.
You are obvously a man.
May 15, 2010 at 11:20 am | by MarshallDiane LaCalamita is my hero!
Maybe the problem with her billing hours had soomething to do with the extras the firm had her doing, all the added responsabilities that were not part of her title.
“Maybe the problem with her billing hours had soomething to do with the extras the firm had her doing, all the added responsabilities that were not part of her title.”
Okay, for a second let’s assume your theory is true. That means she agreed to perform tasks that weren’t part of her job description i.e. that weren’t written into her contract. Well, that would be another failure on her part.
“You are obvously a man.”
May 15, 2010 at 9:49 pm | by RidiculousWhat a completely baseless comment – and therefore moronic.
Perhaps the article is missing some points. But the reality remains. Women (whether or not LaCalamita’s situation) are paid less than men in the same position with the same responsibilities.
In addition, let me assure you – many company’s still employ the “old boys’ club” school of thought. My previous employer (an income investment firm) was the epitome of this. A private firm of a few hundred employees with a male chief in charge. If that place had been a bank with a proper HR department, it would not exist simply due to the law suits. As a woman, you needed one helluva thick skin, and steel balls. Oh…the tales I could tell.
May 18, 2010 at 11:54 am | by KMany male lawyers are part of an after hours club known as a masonic lodge, they are brothers and hep each other out in the real world
May 25, 2010 at 9:36 am | by David StillmanWelcome to the bullshit world of the canadian job market.
May 30, 2010 at 8:53 am | by ddLaCalamita has incredible courage, and I applaud her.
The easy thing to do would have been to get another job and get out of a clearly toxic environment. To walk away.
I am so grateful to her for exposing the perpetual boys club, and the way that biglaw treats its employees.
The inescapable reality is that many of the women who succeed and are held out as the “female partners” got there one of two ways – they acted like men, or, and I hate to say this, slept with them. Which makes firing them a lawsuit waiting to happen.
It is simply impossible to be a woman and work like one in a male-dominated environment.
Go to any Bay street sit-down lunch spot and you will find it stacked heavily with men. They are schmoozing. The women are at the office, trying to work twice as hard and twice as well to get to the same place their counterparts are getting to at lunch. They weren’t invited. It’s a guy thing.
June 8, 2010 at 4:08 pm | by Right OnDiane: I would love to interview you for my Major Research Paper for my Masters course. I am studying the reality of gender issues pertaining to Leader Development in professional services (law firms, advertisting, asset/money management) The system and the network are stacked against women and women need to figure that out so that they can put in place a really effective plan on where to focus their best, time-constrained efforts. Won’t always work and the firms have an accountability, but women only networks are not the most ‘critical’ of connections.
July 22, 2010 at 10:51 am | by HMC