Criminal Justice
Sidley Austin Rescinds Offer to New Hire Suspected of Setting Fire to 9-11 Chapel
Posted Nov 2, 2009 1:05 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Updated: The law firm Sidley Austin has rescinded an employment offer to a Harvard law graduate who has turned himself in to police for allegedly setting fire to a Sept. 11 memorial in Manhattan.
The suspect, 26-year-old Brian Schroeder, is a 2009 graduate of Harvard Law School, the Harvard Law Record reports. He was a 2008 summer associate at Sidley Austin; a permanent offer of employment has been rescinded, Sidley Austin partner Bill Conlon told the ABA Journal.
Schroeder turned himself in for the blaze at the Memorial Park chapel housing the remains of unidentified Sept. 11 victims on Saturday evening, according to the New York Post and the New York Times. The remains were unharmed, but mementos such as photos and flowers were either damaged or stolen. Sources told the Post that the Saturday morning fire may have been set as part of a drunken dare.
Schroeder was co-president of HLS Lambda and served on a task force considering the impact of military recruiting on the campus gay community, according to the Harvard Law Record. He was a theater major as an undergraduate at Duke, and acted in Harvard's school satire called the Parody. He also edited the Harvard Latino Law Review.
An unidentified relative of Schroeder’s told the Post that he has no radical political bent. "It's clearly out of his character and I'm sure he feels for the victims' families," the relative added.
Updated at 12:30 p.m. to include information from Sidley Austin.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
tim
Nov 2, 2009 10:17 AM CST
Is this a hate crime?
Way to do a background check on your summer associates.
Flag this comment
Esq.
Nov 2, 2009 10:42 AM CST
@ #1: Law firms care only about GPA and school ranking. Nothing else. They couldn’t care less about the candidate’s maturity level or general social adaptation. What kind of 26 year old grown man takes this type of drunken dare?
If he just graduated, and assumedly sat for the July bar exam, I wonder if this means he’ll fail the character and fitness portion of admission application process.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Nov 2, 2009 11:13 AM CST
Not a hate crime. the ashes of 9/11 victims aren’t a constitutionally protected class of people. For one thing, they’re not people.
However, it is a crazy, stupid crime. Given the night of the arson, I’d bet it was Halloween-related.
Flag this comment
associate
Nov 2, 2009 1:08 PM CST
Wow, he’s pretty radical. I guess he’s looking to skip the private practice gig and go straight into a law professor job or a job with the federal govn’t.
Flag this comment
kathy
Nov 2, 2009 1:15 PM CST
Hmmm…definitely an agregious lapse of moral judgement and a hard life lesson. This will sting him for quite some time to come.
Flag this comment
Esq.
Nov 2, 2009 2:32 PM CST
As disgusting as his alleged acts were, shouldn’t the firm at least wait for an arrest or indictment?
Flag this comment
Joe
Nov 2, 2009 2:42 PM CST
That was a waste of life for him. No one will ever hire him now.
Lawyer joke of the day
An environmentalist dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an environmentalist—you’re in the wrong place.” Thinking that heaven could never make an error, the environmentalist reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon, the environmentalist gets dissatisfied with the environment in hell and starts implementing eco-friendly improvements. After a while, global warming, air and water pollution are under control. The landscape is covered with grass and plants, the food is organic, and the people are happy. The environmentalist has become a pretty popular guy. One day, God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?” Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve got clean air and water, the temperature is better and the food tastes better, and there’s no telling what this environmentalist is going to fix next.” God replies, “What??? You’ve got an environmentalist? That’s a mistake—he should never have gotten down there; send him up here.” Satan says, “No way. I like having an environmentalist on the staff, and I’m keeping him.” God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.” Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And just where are you going to get a lawyer?”
Flag this comment
LS
Nov 2, 2009 2:49 PM CST
More interestingly, but somewhat besides the point: testimonials by friends and acquaintances describe Schroeder as quite and odd; HLS classmates describe him as fun and outgoing. Might be pure coincidence, though.
Flag this comment
Mac The Knife
Nov 2, 2009 3:40 PM CST
#1 tim “Way to do a background check on your summer associates.”
And a background check on him when he was a summer associate a year ago would have helped screen him out for a crime he committed 2 days ago…....how?
Flag this comment
Worthless JD
Nov 2, 2009 3:58 PM CST
Saw this on Above The Law comment (one could substitute New York Law School for Seton Hall). Fact remains an arsonist with a Harvard JD is more employable than a New York Law School JD with no record.
First Department Admissions Interviewer (“Interviewer”): Looking at your background, I see that you have an arson charge.
Brian: Yes I do, but I graduated from Harvard Law School.
Interviewer: I see that, but over a 9/11 memorial. That is pretty offensive.
Brian: I agree. I was drunk. It was stupid. Did I mention I was a co-editor of the Latino Law Review?
Interviewer: I sense genuine contriteness. Besides, you graduated Harvard Law School. The name of the law school you graduated from is more important than nonsense like character and fitness. People will forget in a few years. It’s not like you graduated from a diploma mill like Seton Hall or Brooklyn whose graduates are more fit to be in the Bronx Zoo. In fact, did you know that your Harvard diploma allows you to skip the line at Shake Shack. Welcome to the profession.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 2, 2009 6:46 PM CST
He got it wrong. Newbie Harvard grads are supposed to set fire to the legal world, not memorial chapels. The commencement address must have been, in some way, unclear.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Nov 3, 2009 12:35 PM CST
It is difficult to imagine how this could be merely a drunken prank. There is something very, very wrong here and a committee on character and fitness would be remiss not to investigate this fully.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it does not fundamentally alter character. What could possibly explain or excuse such a despicable act?
Methinks that this is not too far removed from depraved acts. It seems to be beyond bad judgment.
Flag this comment
Paul the Magyar
Nov 3, 2009 1:26 PM CST
To clarify my comments above:
Most of the clients at a public defender’s office are stupid or ignorant or impulsive opportunists (sometimes all of the above). They do not usually have elaborate schemes or engage in acts that do not have immediate tangible benefits. They are not usually sociopaths or worse—people with depraved hearts who do true evil in this world (though some obviously are).
Since there is no immediate tangible benefit in this type of arson, this act has some other origin. Since the alleged perpetrator is highly intelligent and well-educated, this act has some other origin. This act is beyond a stupid prank, like stealing a stop sign for a dorm room without thinking someone might enter a busy intersection without pause and be killed or kill someone else.
I would worry that the person who does this type of act, with this intelligence and education, is lacking something more substantial in terms of character. I would worry that this person IS a sociopath, has no judgment, thinks norms and laws (ethics, rules of professional conduct, rules of court, laws) do not apply to him.
Much different from, say, stuffing a tray of Piggly Wiggly porkchops in his pants to shoplift.
Flag this comment
Kathy
Nov 3, 2009 3:33 PM CST
To Paul the Magyar—excellent points! (re your posting 13. To clarify…)
Flag this comment
RD
Nov 4, 2009 9:53 AM CST
For those who say he will never get a job, may I remind you of Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn? Also, I am sure this firm did a background check, but if this is out of character for him, how would something have shown up in a background check? How would they know he would do something like this? It’s always very easy to Monday-morning quarterback when you have all the facts. Hindsight is always 20-20, folks.
Flag this comment
chuck
Nov 6, 2009 6:22 AM CST
One need only read the description of his background and activities to get a pretty good clue who this guy is and start drawing inferences and connect the dots. One can gather that he 1) homosexual 2) hates the military 3) definitely hates george bush 4) and my guess is his belief structure mimics what is on the the daily KOS, DU, and the Huffington Post. Once you take that into account, it is not very surprising someone like that would set fire to a 9/11 memorial.
Flag this comment
Bush One
Nov 6, 2009 6:44 AM CST
Esq. @#6: Uh, HE TURNED HIMSELF IN. This kinda takes his actions out of the “alleged” category, no? Even if no charges, conviction, etc. ever occur (“But officers, it was an accident”), do you want this jackass in your firm?
Flag this comment
Santiago
Nov 6, 2009 6:50 AM CST
Any of you know any 9/11 families? Or speak to any? I give this guy 20 days, tops, before one of the families tracks him down and punches him square in the balls. And then hopefully sets fire to said balls.
Flag this comment
Bill
Nov 6, 2009 7:24 AM CST
“Since the alleged perpetrator is highly intelligent and well-educated ... “
That is a huge assumption that is not borne out by the evidence. He evidently is not “highly intelligent;” he’s an immature a**h*le with some form of sociopathy.
Flag this comment
MaryM
Nov 6, 2009 7:58 AM CST
@13: “Most of the clients at a public defender’s office are stupid or ignorant or impulsive opportunists (sometimes all of the above). They do not usually have elaborate schemes or engage in acts that do not have immediate tangible benefits. They are not usually sociopaths or worse—people with depraved hearts who do true evil in this world (though some obviously are).”
Not only do your comments have nothing to do with the story above (what does the PD’s office have to do with an idiot getting drunk and acting stupidly?), your comments are also highly offensive. To classify a group of people as stupid, ignorant, or impulsive opportunists simply based on the fact that they are indigent or low income and can’t afford an attorney is ridiculous.
Flag this comment
AGC
Nov 6, 2009 8:24 AM CST
I am disturbed and disappointed by Sidley’s action. When I went to law school, a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And shame on each of the commenters here who have similarly condemned the accused.
The act is to be condemned. The actor is to be condemned once judged so by due process.
Flag this comment
T
Nov 6, 2009 8:28 AM CST
If this man had been brown, or anything other than white for that matter, he would have been considered a terrorist and there would have been a national outrage.
Flag this comment
arizona JD
Nov 6, 2009 8:29 AM CST
To #16 - I can’t believe you actually said something like that where other people are going to read it. Where does one begin? Just because he was on a taskforce that considered the effects of military recruiting does not mean he hates the military. Just because he was involved in theater doesn’t make him gay. Even if he were a liberal democrat who had strong feelings about the military, how does that translate to ill will towards dead Americans?
I’d like to know where YOU went to law school. I wouldn’t have let you in.
Flag this comment
dynamite
Nov 6, 2009 9:14 AM CST
Um, can I say innocent until proven guilty? We are lawyers people, please have some respect for Due Process.
Flag this comment
Associate Zero
Nov 6, 2009 9:21 AM CST
Another moron with a law degree. Another maladjusted Harvard grad. Why am I not surprised?
Flag this comment
associate
Nov 6, 2009 9:22 AM CST
Arizona JD, I hope you do appellate work, because you must be pretty bad at investigations. They take sometimes take common sense and a little conjecture to guess the right answer before you can prove it.
PS: I’m thinking the big pointer toward the guy being gay is the whole “Co-president of HLS Lambda” thing.
Flag this comment
2plus2is4
Nov 6, 2009 9:24 AM CST
What’s funny about this is going to the HLS Lambda website and then finding the grammatical mistakes in the organization’s description. Do they teach editing at Harvard? By the way, being a co-president of HLS Lambda and scheduling events such as “ballroom dancing for queers” might reasonably lead one to believe that such a person is gay. Must the world ignore logical inferences for the sake of political correctness?
Flag this comment
cathy
Nov 6, 2009 9:47 AM CST
#21 and others: Due process only applies to the government. The law firm may make any decision it wants. Considering the suspect turned himself in and there is (apparently) no indication he denies the act, it seems pretty reasonable to rescind his offer. And certainly if I already believe he did it then I shouldn’t be on his jury. But aside from that, everyone here is free to draw their own conclusions.
Flag this comment
Don Quixote
Nov 6, 2009 9:53 AM CST
Hey number 20 -
As someone who works in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that 13’s comments in re: the core clientel of a defenders’ service are spot on.
And now, I have to return to planet earth.
Flag this comment
garygech
Nov 6, 2009 9:53 AM CST
I think this is a sad story. Obviously, part of moral character for lawyers is how we represent the profession. I do not think this is very representative. Most law students are very civil. I don’t really believe a drunken dare is really a mistake. Carrying out a dare has the specific intent to commit a crime. Being drunk would not negative this specific intent. Arson is a serious crime because it combines property damage with the danger of death. In California this year many people have died as a result of arson with homes lost and major evacuations.
I think the issue is significant for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that in third year of law school students need a course in representing the profession. Many students have failed the bar, many students have had difficulty finding a position after school. This is very depressing for them. However, most of these students got back on the horse. With mentoring and encouragement, these students turned into fine lawyers and model citizens. Some went on to city council, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Committing a major crime is very uncharacteristic for a recent graduate. It suggests either a problem with the screening process or substance abuse.
Step back as a professional and realize if a similar event happened to an associate or partner that you were friendly with. It would come as a shock and you would quietly distance yourself from them out of necessity. I think practically this is because as professionals the majority of people are focused in helping clients or advancing a significant cause. We have all made personal and professional errors at one point, but less than one percent of practicing lawyers or doctors go on to commit crime. When we investigate the cause of criminal behavior, it has a very high correlation with substance abuse. Obviously, the profession cannot police every prospective lawyer. We can ask reasonable questions that other professions ask, like, “Do you have an alcohol or substance abuse problem?”
Flag this comment
Don Quixote
Nov 6, 2009 9:57 AM CST
24, Mr./ Ms. Due Process,
I think we can all agree that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is something to be treasured.
That said, the only thing at issue here (in the macro sense) is this dingbat’s mens rea or lack thereof.
HE DID IT. HE SET THE CHURCH ON FIRE.
He may not be guilty under the law (highly doubtful), but he is ‘guilty’ of having, at the very least, piss poor judgment.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 6, 2009 9:58 AM CST
Part of the alcohol or substance abuse problem is denial. Most people who have the problem are not going to answer “yes” until the problem has become obvious and undeniable to the extent that the question is a mere formality.
Flag this comment
fred
Nov 6, 2009 10:43 AM CST
kathy 5., did you say “definitely an agregious lapse of moral judgement” wow.
Flag this comment
J. Ryan
Nov 6, 2009 11:07 AM CST
Perhaps he really wants to start his career as a jailhouse lawyer, helping inmates prepare handwritten appeals in return for packs of cigarettes and porn magazines.
Flag this comment
JoeyB
Nov 6, 2009 11:09 AM CST
This guy must be an absolutely insufferable brat, so taken with himself and the fact people have been kissing his behind for so long that he can’t see beyond his self-righteousness. I hope the New York ARDC finds him unfit to have law license.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Nov 6, 2009 11:18 AM CST
Maybe arson is “out of character” for this idiot. But apparently taking on “double dog dares” is not. Either way, he’s now permanent poison and not likely to be admitted to any state bar this side of Afghanistan.
Flag this comment
associate
Nov 6, 2009 11:27 AM CST
30, did your bleding heart really just gush out, “what if something like this HAPPENED TO someone you know.”
Dude got rip roaring drunk and burnt down a 9/11 memorial because of his underlying radical philosophy. Nothing “happened” to him other than the usual indoctrination at “elite” schools.
Flag this comment
old guy
Nov 6, 2009 12:24 PM CST
Depends on which department whether the Character & Fitness Committee will give him a hard time. If he’s 1st Dept, he’s OK, but if he’s 2nd or 3rd, he might have trouble: back in the ‘80s, there were senior associates at white shoe firms who were still technically ‘law clerks’ and not admitted over anti-war activities back in the ‘70s. There were some examiners who just wouldn’t pass them.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Nov 6, 2009 1:09 PM CST
#37—Objection. No foundation. The inference of any “radical philosophy” isn’t reasonable. Drunks set fire to things all the time without political motivation.
Flag this comment
associate
Nov 6, 2009 1:19 PM CST
39, are you serious? That’s rhetorical. I’ve seen how out there you are.
I’ve gotten rip roaring drunk and lit a bon fire, fireworks, etc. I’m pretty sure I’ve never set a church, graveyard, or monument on fire. That crap takes a special kind of enlightened progressive.
Flag this comment
FLuffy
Nov 6, 2009 1:36 PM CST
I am sure his law professors are quite proud of him. Our “elite” institutions are spitting out mushy, undisciplined law slop. The price of tearing down the dreaded “establishment.”
Flag this comment
an editor
Nov 6, 2009 1:42 PM CST
Just to emphasize, No. 5:
“agregious”?
Flag this comment
CA
Nov 6, 2009 2:35 PM CST
Can I just echo Esq @ #2 -
Maybe if top law firms gave a crap about character during the recruitment process and recruited the whole person instead of recruiting a US News ranking, they would weed out the Schroeder’s of the legal world.
The formulas top firm’s use to score recruits put so much weight on the ranking of the law school instead of the accomplishments of the person the entire process is polluted.
Flag this comment
Now really?
Nov 6, 2009 2:49 PM CST
For those who want to learn a little dancing before they go burn something up, I’ve posted here tonight’s scheduled activity for the HLS Lambda organization at Harvard over which this idiot presided as co-president. Who doesn’t want to do a little dancing before you burn up a memorial chapel?
8:00pm Queer Ballroom LessonsWhenFri, November 6, 8pm – 10pm
WhereAdams LCR (map)
DescriptionEver felt like doing ballroom with your own queer spin but didn’t know where to start? Ever felt awkward having to lead that girl when really, you wanted to do the spinning around? Come learn ballroom moves in a queer-friendly environment!
Flag this comment
Joe
Nov 6, 2009 3:04 PM CST
To #15 (or anyone else for that matter), who in the world is Bernedette Dorn?
Flag this comment
Cloudburst
Nov 6, 2009 3:20 PM CST
The closet is getting a little too empty.
Flag this comment
R
Nov 6, 2009 4:18 PM CST
#16 wrote: “My guess is his belief structure mimics what is on the the daily KOS, DU, and the Huffington Post.”
And my guess is Timotny McVeigh’s belief structure mimicked what is on WND and Fox News.
But seriously: get a life and stop trying to demonize your political opponents. I enjoy HuffPo but find arson to 9/11 memorials deeply, deeply offensive. People like you who cast aspersions on the patriotism of people who happen to be liberal are really poisoning political discourse in our country.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Nov 6, 2009 4:25 PM CST
#45—Bernardine Dohrn was a once-famous member of the Weather Underground. Bernadette dorn? Beats me. Maybe her less evil clone.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Nov 6, 2009 4:29 PM CST
#40—I’d rather be an enlightened progressive than a benighted regressive. Clearly you’d prefer to be the latter.
Flag this comment
Mark A
Nov 6, 2009 5:05 PM CST
Harvard Law would not do him any good if he gets coonvicted for arso. He will not be admitted to the bar with that conviction and he would be disbarred if he had been admitted. Except maybe a law school might want him as a professor because of the Ivy League pedigree.
The public defender clientsthat 13 describe get punished if they are convicted. Harvard Law should know criminal law better than they do so should be held to the same or higher standard than they are and I think a jury would feel the same way.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.