A BigLaw defamation fight has turned into a full-blown courtroom food fight.
An ex-associate at Baker McKenzie has fired back with her own lawsuit after the firm sued her for defamation, escalating what is now a rare and highly public public dispute inside elite legal ranks.
The firm’s original claim alleges the former associate made false and damaging statements about Baker McKenzie following her departure. She denies that and has now countersued, accusing the firm of defamation and retaliation.
At the heart of the clash is a familiar but uncomfortable BigLaw question: how far firms can go to protect their reputations when former lawyers speak out, and where that line tips into alleged silencing or blowback litigation. Defamation cases involving major law firms are still uncommon, and this one is drawing attention precisely because it pits a global brand against a single former employee in open court.
The litigation now runs both ways, with competing claims over who said what, when, and whether the statements crossed the legal threshold from opinion into alleged fact.
As reported by Above the Law, the case is shaping up less like a routine employment fallout and more like a cautionary tale about reputational warfare in the age of screenshots, Slack messages, and social media receipts.
For BigLaw, the stakes go well beyond one dispute. Win or lose, this case puts firm culture, internal disputes, and post-exit speech squarely under the judicial microscope.
