WSJ Expose on WSGR, Joshua Wright Forum

[amj564]

According to WSJ, GMU Professor Joshua Wright made a pattern of initiating sexual relationships with his students at GMU Law. He got some of the students jobs working with him at WSGR DC.

"Even after Wright was ousted [for lying about his relationship with one of these former students], Wilson Sonsini looked for a way to keep him working. The Justice Department was investigating whether Google used anticompetitive practices to build its internet-search and advertising business, the kind of threat Wright was renowned for neutralizing.

The head of the law firm’s Washington office, Susan Creighton, wrote in a November 2019 email to Wright that she had spoken with other partners about keeping him involved with Google, one of the firm’s top clients. Any arrangement, she said, would make him 'at least as well off, if not better off' than working for Wilson Sonsini.

'One such example might be for you to continue to bill through the firm, effectively as an ‘expert,’ and keep 100% of the revenues,' she wrote. 'Another would be for you to bill directly to Google.' Creighton declined to comment.

Shortly afterward, Wright got a consulting contract with Google to collect and analyze economic data. A Google spokesman said the company 'had no knowledge of the reasons for Mr. Wright’s departure from Wilson Sonsini.'

[. . .]

Wright evaded scrutiny over affairs with students because the university, like Wilson Sonsini, found him too valuable to lose, some of the women alleged. His conduct was known around campus, those women said, and complaints to school officials in past years went nowhere.

'His inappropriate relationships with students were apparently an open secret at GMU for years, but his misconduct also affected junior antitrust lawyers and scholars,' said Kellie Kemp, an antitrust lawyer who had worked at Wilson Sonsini when Wright did. 'Yet leaders of law firms, academic institutions, and other organizations continued to employ him, sponsor him, or refer work to him well after they should have known better.'”

The firm looks pretty bad here.

[Anonymous User]

Disappointing but not surprising that a female partner set up this deal

[Anonymous User]

The school looks really bad, but it seems like the firm did indeed remove him, so not sure why they look bad here?

[Anonymous User]

The school looks really bad, but it seems like the firm did indeed remove him, so not sure why they look bad here?

He was caught using the firm to reward and maintain relationships with his student-mistresses, and the firm removed him but kept him close in a role that came with a pay bump.

To be sure, Scalia Law looks much worse.