Ezold v. Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen

Nancy Ezold put herself through law school with one goal in mind: to be a trial attorney. Despite the added burden of raising her two boys alone, she excelled at her job in the Litigation Department of Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen. After six years, she was recommended for partnership by the senior partner in Litigation as well as other attorneys with whom she had worked. Ignoring the recommendation, the managing partners of the firm refused to consider her, and when she questioned their decision, they offered her partnership if she would run the firm's Domestic Relations practice - an area in which she had no experience and less interest.

Eventually, Ezold sued Wolf Block, and won. Written reviews of men who had made partner the same year Ezold was denied were read into the court record. Many of these were so embarrassing to the firm (one man had allegedly committed malpractice; another disappeared without notice and missed critical deadlines) that Wolf Block later had the names of the individuals removed from the record.

The trial judge found for Ezold, citing over 150 findings of fact. Despite this, three judges on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned the verdict. Their basic rationale was that courts owe partnerships "special deference" in their employment decisions. The Appellate Court's blatant "re-trying" of the case (which is not the function nor the right of Appellate Courts) was a "hideous miscarriage of justice", according to Stanford Law Professor Barbara Babcock. Ezold petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993; over 60 organizations throughout the country signed on as "amici" in support of her petition.

In September, 1993, Ezold's petition was denied. While this does not mean that the Court agreed with the Appellate Court's decision, it does allow that decision to stand as precedent in the Third Circuit. Also, it means that Ezold must pay Wolf Block's costs, which the court set at $25,000. Wolf Block continued its reprehensible negative campaign against Ezold even after their victory in September: the senior partner at the firm wrote to people who had supported Ezold and castigated them, even going so far as to call one Jewish women's organization "kapos" for their support of Ezold. ("Kapos" was a term applied to Jews who worked for the Nazis in concentration camps.)

Ezold has now begun her own practice as an employment attorney in Philadelphia, but she and her family have not recovered from the enormous financial burden of fighting this case. Her attorneys' fees for services were on a contingent basis, but Ezold still owes them over $75,000 for expenses.

Please help Ezold eliminate this financial burden by sending a tax-deductible contribution to: