caplan

Will Willkie allow him to resit? (Probably not, no.)


Gordon Caplan, Willkie Farr & Gallagher's former co-chairman, has avoided being disbarred after an appeals court was moved by his testimony that he destroyed his life.

Caplan, who was also a member of the firm's Executive Committee and a partner in its Private Equity practice Group, spent a month in prison in 2019 after he admitted paying a consultant, William Singer, $75,000 to bribe a bent exam invigilator to correct his daughter's college entrance exam paper.

The partner, who was drawing at least $3 million a year at Willkie Farr, was placed on leave and then dumped by the firm when he signalled he would plead guilty.

“Mr. Caplan’s departure is a result of his involvement in the college admissions matter and his recent statement regarding his intent to plead to a criminal charge,” said a spokesperson for Willkie, who added that, “At Willkie, nothing is more important to us than our integrity and we do not tolerate behavior that runs contrary to our core values".


Willkie top guns

It tolerates crimes like this ad for its German office, though.


The five judges who sat on Caplan's appeal against his expulsion from the New York bar concluded that Caplan had been focused “not on the immorality and illegality of his actions but on not getting caught, and he continued with the scheme despite numerous opportunities to walk away”.

Nonetheless, they were sufficiently moved by his testimony that they opted to suspend him for two years, backdated to 2019, rather than disbar him. Caplan had told them he was brought low by his hubris, and that “I destroyed my life". The judges said that after he was caught (how about that), he had displayed “palpable” shame, plus he described his time in prison as “horrific”.

RollOnFriday asked Willkie if, once Caplan had done his time in November, it might take him back on, but it did not respond.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

BiggerDaddy 26 February 21 10:16

That add is not even the worst. They have done Ghostbusters, Astronauts, American Football, Cowboys & Native Americans and Blues Brothers. If anyone signs with Willkie, it is mandatory to mock them for their adds.

Anonymous 26 February 21 11:36

Not going to lie, feel a bit sorry for this chap.

Pretty sure that we'd all have done a similar thing in his position and given the opportunity. Seems a bit harsh to trash his life's work for a single mistake.

He was just trying to get his kid into university. It's hardly a sin.

Anonymous 26 February 21 11:43

Amazing that he wasn't disbarred. If he had been a trainee solicitor in the UK he would have been hung, drawn and quartered by the SRA. 

Rocinante 26 February 21 12:35

Anon @1136 - A sin? That's a theological question. 

But it is most certainly a crime. Quite a serious one, too. 

Anonymous 26 February 21 12:48

Is it a crime though?

He's just a chap who wants his child to get a good education. Saying that you recognise that they haven't quite made the grade to get in on merit alone, but that you're willing to pay extra to make up for that shortcoming if it will guarantee a place hardly seems like a criminal act.

Turn it around and nobody would bat an eyelid:

A: I would like this job please

B: We have other better qualified applicants, sorry

A: What if I did it for 10% less pay?

B: That would be a competitive offer, you are hired

 

How is this guy any worse than that? Locking him up for it is a complete travesty.

Anonymous 26 February 21 13:28

@12.48 because pay is a legitimate part of candidacy for a job. A invigilators amending exam papers is not a legitimate part of university entrance exams.

But you know this, maaaaaaan!

 

H 26 February 21 14:21

Because unlike in Legally Blonde, a bad exam grade is not a starting point for negotiations! 

bananaman 26 February 21 14:37

[email protected] I feel sorry for him. The same brigade were out when Grierson (lovely chap) stole from his firm to pay for his mistress. If you want a comparison, rather than the job offer, try:

"I'd like to come into the country"

"You need a visa"

"If I pay you $100k, will you let me in?"

"Okay"

Anonymous 26 February 21 15:11

"You need a visa"

"Could I apply for a Highly Skilled Worker one?"

"No. You do not have the applicable skills"

"I see. What about an Entrepreneur / Investor one?"

"Yes, if you pay the fee and have the money available to invest"

"Oh, how convenient, I do have loads of money so that is a very suitable visa option for me"

 

Apparently that's a crime though, and those visa options are really just tricks that only exist to catch out evil villains who we then immediately throw into jail.

Vinegar Drunkard 26 February 21 23:36

Should have sent the dull lass to finishing school for a year. She could have resat later.

Pathetic ruling of course.

Touker 27 February 21 12:49

@anyone who is dumb enough to sympathise with his sob story, please contact me as I am a Nigerian prince who is willing to split some money I have left in a locked bank account as long as you can pay a small administrative fee.

Fake Partner 01 March 21 01:20

Meanwhile a harried solo attorney in New York making $120k a year with reams of paper in his office and ink stains on his tie would certainly be disbarred. 

Anonymous 01 March 21 20:09

Pretty sure that we'd all have done a similar thing in his position

and 

 

Is it a crime though?

He's just a chap who wants his child to get a good education. Saying that you recognise that they haven't quite made the grade to get in on merit alone, but that you're willing to pay extra to make up for that shortcoming if it will guarantee a place hardly seems like a criminal act.

Let's play "Troll Or Arsehole"?

Elephantine Strides 04 March 21 01:47

I wanted my son to do well in his SAT 

I bought the Official SAT Guide from Amazon for the princely sum of around $15 and made him practice the sample tests in it for a couple of days.

The strategy worked very well.

 

I guess that I saved nearly $75,000...

 

 

 

Anonymous 04 March 21 09:21

to be honest I feel a bit sorry for him.
 

@BiggerDaddy: Even in a suit these homely guys would look pretty similarly pretentious in terms of the characters portrayed, not to mention embarrassing in context with a law firm.

Related News