Last October, a law school placement director friend of mine forwarded me an email with a juicy piece of big law gossip. A former associate at Sullivan & Cromwell had offed himself. He was 39.
The body was discovered beneath a highway bridge in Toronto. A few days earlier, it was revealed that since the mid-90’s, he and a co-conspirator made ten million dollars on an insider trading scheme. He’d stolen insider information from S&C, arriving early in the morning to dig through waste baskets, rifle partners’ desks and employ temporary word-processor codes to break into the computer system.
“You can’t make this shit up,” was my friend’s comment. “Wasn’t he from around your time?”
It took a minute to locate the face. Gil Cornblum. Jewish, a bit pudgy, with big round glasses. Gil, in that ridiculous little office two doors down from mine.
What was Gil like? Mild-mannered, pleasant, always smiling.
I should have known something was wrong.
The pieces fit together.
Gil kept weird hours. He used to chuckle that he liked to get in early so he didn’t have to stay late. It turned out he was in at 5 am, combing the firm for insider tips.
The lavish wedding, too. A mutual friend was invited up to Canada to watch Gil tie the knot, and was blown away.
As people do in these situations, I stopped for a moment to contemplate Gil’s death. His body was discovered at the bottom of a highway bridge. He was still breathing, according to the bits of news I found online.
So far as I could tell, that meant portly, lovable Gil Cornblum threw himself off a bridge on a Canadian highway in the middle of the night and lay on the bottom – of what? A rocky riverbed? – shattered and dying.
Suicide amounts to punishing whoever is supposed to take care of you because you feel their care is inadequate.
Certainly, the care we all received at S&C was inadequate, and we committed suicide a little each day just by staying there and putting ourselves through that abuse as our lives passed us by. Our slow suicide manifested in other ways as well. Most of us mistreated ourselves by neglecting our health, letting our friendships die off, ignoring our families, our hobbies, our lives.
Maybe insider trading was Gil’s grand suicidal gesture, his protest against the abuse he received. He put his entire life on the line, knowing he might well be caught, end up in jail and lose everything. He was playing Russian roulette, and maybe he knew he’d kill himself if he got caught.
And all for what? Money.
In psychotherapy, money is a surrogate for love, for security. We all felt insecure and unloved at S&C. Maybe insider trading and stolen money gave Gil a counter-balance. Maybe it was supposed to compensate for everything else missing in that pointless existence.
Were the rest of us so different? Weren’t we all trading our lives for money? No one would have been working in that hell hole if they hadn’t waved six-figure salaries in our faces.
The high suicide rate among lawyers isn’t hard to explain: you trade away your life for money and clutch at possessions to substitute for what’s missing. You’re already dying.
When it doesn’t work, and money fails to answer your needs, the rage overflows. You punish the world for denying you the care you crave.
End result? The ultimate victory through defeat. You take your own life.
Discharging unconscious anger feels good. It’s a primitive, simple pleasure. It’s also incredibly destructive. Gil – who seemed like a mild-mannered, pleasant Canadian – was probably high as a kite on the rage he was discharging by stealing millions of dollars right under those partners’ noses.
But his rage consumed the money and kept going. It finally consumed his life.
I remember Gil Cornblum as a nice guy. I can’t find it in me to come down on him too harshly for his crimes. I suppose he had to steal money to keep himself happy at a place as miserable as S&C. He was doing what he had to, to fill the emptiness we all felt working at that place.
Goodbye, Gil. I’m sorry that emptiness finally opened up wide enough to swallow you whole.
========
This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series.
If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book, Way Worse Than Being A Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
I also heartily recommend my first book, an introduction to the concepts behind psychotherapy, Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy
(Both books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s book.
Another excellent post Will! What you’re saying about anger, money and suicide is huge and insightful. I have a certain sympathy for all lawyers because, while many of us feel trapped in our jobs in one way or another, lawyers feel it even more so because they sacrificed so much, and paid so much money to get these positions that are supposedly highly valued in our society. Once they’re in, it’s too hard to walk away. Which makes it even more wonderful and admirable that you were able to do so.
Excellent, if sad, article. As a large-law firm escapee, it was always interesting to see how quickly the bright, bushy-tailed young associates quickly became cynical, unhappy, unhealthy (in body and mind), and disillusioned but trapped by the large salary waved under their noses to entice them to come to biglawfirm. My advice, as it was given to me, was always to download the debt as quickly as possible; live small and within a person’s means so if the job became too much (painful, boring, etc.) to suck up, there were options, and options allows one to feel in control. When we’re struggling students we always fantasized what it would be like to have money without thinking of the consequences and that the consequences are often golden handcuffs.
“Suicide amounts to punishing whoever is supposed to take care of you because you feel their care is inadequate.” What does this quotation mean? How did this apply to Gil? Was Gil “punishing” anyone by committing suicide? Was S&C supposed to “take care of [him]” but Gil “[felt] their care [was] inadequate.” It strikes me that there’s not much of a psychological perspective to this – i.e., the man was committing a very serious felony, he was about to be caught, and feared the consequences, so he killed himself. Sad? Yes. Worthy of psychological evaluation? Probably not.
As a therapist, I like to probe beneath that surface, and ask why? The reasons often lead back to how we relate to the world both as an adult, and as a child. This might sound like psychobabble to you, but I think – if you suspend disbelief and ask yourself honestly if you are doing a lot of what you do, career-wise, to please or impress you parents…the answer might surprise you.
…oh, and in case you think I’m pulling Gil’s parents into his suicide – maybe I am. I don’t know who Gil was punishing – I can’t read minds. But I stand by my analysis of the suicidal motive. It is about anger, directed at whomever you feel failed to provide you needed care. Certainly a big law firm fails at the task of providing even a minimum level of care for its employees. I’ve never worked in a harsher, more punishing professional environment. Just putting yourself into that environment and staying there reflects something about how you’ve learned to accept being treated by others in your life.
I’m certainly not “blaming” anyone. I’m pointing out what’s behind suicide, which is a feeling of deprivation. I have no idea what Gil’s parents were like. Gil was responsible for himself – and he was responsible for taking his own life. I’m trying to understand why he might have done that.
“Maybe insider trading was Gil’s grand suicidal gesture, his protest against the abuse he received.”
Let’s not excuse him. What exactly was he protesting when he became partner at Dorsey & Whitney and continued to insider trade?
He’s just another fat, greedy partner who decided to exit stage left when the curtain was raised and exposed his nothingness.
Hmmmm…I’m not sure about that. First of all, I liked Gil, which I couldn’t say about many of the partners I worked with. Secondly, the other partners weren’t committing insider trading crimes, at least so far as I knew. Gil was Gil, and what he did was unique – at least in Canadian history, according to the financial news posts. He wasn’t just another anything – at least to me.
I see…so you briefly overlapped with the deceased at S&C and are able to recall where his office was located after probing your memory. Yet somehow you understand what motivated him (“his rage consumed the money and kept going…”). Ethical considerations aside, perhaps you should reserve your analysis for actual patients.
Well, it’s been a while, but I worked closely with Gil – we did a couple of securities deals together – and we socialized a bit before he left the firm. He was one of the few people I can say I really liked at that place. And I don’t have any ethical problems with trying to figure out what was happening in my friend’s mind when he did the things he did. I think that’s what we all do when something like this happens to someone we cared about.
Not sure why you choose to lead your description of the late Mr. Cornblum with his religion. Does it matter?
I’m Jewish. Sorry – I guess I just noticed another Jew. No offense intended.
Check out Eric Marcus’ recently updated edition of his book on suicide. His Father at 12.
My Brother 10 years ago. Angry…so angry. JRS
Dear “Reader”:
Believe you me if Gil had ever been adjudicated guilty this would have been worthy of “psychological evaluation” even without the suicidal coda, as a routine part of sentencing in federal court.
I read Will’s statements about suicide being punishment for whoever is supposed to take care of you as heavily psychological and many layered. Perhaps at the top, and most obvious, it’s a strong form of punishment for yourself–because at some point we all have to take care of ourselves. But this kind of exclusive self-loathing to the exclusion of obvious external stressors, and causes, leads one to believe that “…there’s no way out…” a common type of suicidal ideation, I think.
Thanks for your honest and insightful story-telling.
Thank you for reading, and for your kind words.
You are blaming his parents based on what exactly? I understand the psychological concept, but it seems rash and unfair to just jump to that point without something substantial to go on. I’m assuming you never treated Cornblum, so did merely liking him and working with him closely give you some grand insight into his psyche? His crimes were also punishing his parents? At what point do you believe an adult becomes responsible for themselves?
I’m a big law firm associate, and I agree with all of your points about how these places can be toxic and soulless. But there’s a disturbing tone of “excuse” in your post. I choose to work here. No one is forcing me. And it’s certainly not ok to act immorally (remember, he was screwing other investors, not the partners) because you feel sorry for yourself.
I would never try to excuse Gil Cornblum’s crimes. They were immoral. But Gil was a friend, and I guess I simply don’t have the heart – considering how the whole debacle ended – to dwell on punishment right now. Gil was punished plenty. I’m not here to blame – I’m here to explain.
When I think of the college friends or co-workers I’ve known who have killed themselves there was a definite pattern of them having strained or difficult relationships with their parents or parent-type figures. I never fully considered this until I read your post, Will.
Good luck with the comments here. It is a provocative subject, to say the least?
-LN
I don’t deny that S&C can be a harsh environment for some people. But one part of growing up is learning to take care of yourself, and take responsibility for your choices. It seems to me that you can’t just rely on your employer to give you what you need — you need to ask for it. You may even need to demand it. You’d be surprised what you can get if you just ask, even at S&C. I’m not saying that in a better world you wouldn’t have to say “I can’t take that deal on because I’m already missing enough of my kid’s mealtimes already” (more likelihood of success if phrased slightly more artfully), but the only way to get to that better world is for people to start asking for it.
One other thing: you talk about S&C as if it has a monolithic environment, which is just not the case. Different people in different practice groups (or even the same one, especially in some of the larger groups) can have vastly different experiences depending on who is staffed on any particular matter.
I agree with this whole-heartedly. The posts that I have read on this site have been uniformly colored by an awful experience at S&C. I don’t know what practice group he was in, what partners or associates he worked for, but it is clear that, intentionally or not, he universalizes his experience. I guess that it is cathartic for him and his loyal readers to vent on their experiences. I doubt that the universalizing is intentional, for other things he writes – mostly on other topics – seem to employ a broader perspective.
This universalization ignores a singular truth. There are plenty of people at S&C and other law firms who are kind, caring, funny, well-balanced. They are people who understand completely that this is a job, it is not your parents or your friends or your interests, and that you are doing it for the money more than anything else. Parenthetically, doing a job for the money is not a bad thing. In fact, people who have enjoyed a great education and a life full of good breaks tend to complain that they do their job only for the money when MOST people have jobs that they, at best, can endure and do so because of the paycheck.
I fear that, for him to recognize that these types of big-firm lawyers DO exist and exist in good numbers, it would in effect label those who do not take this view as unbalanced, immature, etc. They would be the problem as much as the job. I doubt the operator of this site wants people seeking help to leave his site believing that there are plenty of others out there who do the same job without all the emotional issues and that the issues that are causing problems are as much internal as they are external.
Obviously, they are NOT what is wrong. Different people respond to different situations in – you guessed it – different ways. But to pretend that everyone is miserable, angry, and bitter at big law firms is nuts and self-serving.
The owner of this site paints with a very broad brush, and I’d be inclined to visit more often if I believed that he was speaking to a larger audience than just those that hate work at a big firm and, more generally, feel lost and alone. I suspect that speaking to those people is the main goal for the site, so to that extent, I guess it is successful, but it is misleading.
Well put.
Was it anger as much as desperation? Or does the desperation lead to anger? If it was just anger, couldn’t he have walked away? Seems like that wasn’t a viable option in his mind.
Gil committed a terrible violence against himself and those who cared about him. I don’t think it was driven by desperation – fear. I was an angry act. If he’d merely been afraid, he could have fled the country, or turned himself in and thrown himself on the mercy of the court. No one can ever know for certain, but for me, the ruling emotion feels more like anger.
Good point. Thanks!
W:
I’m a Canadian writer (ex-lawyer) writing a book about Gil Cornblum, who I went to law-school with in Toronto.
Lots of insightful points here.
Could I ask you a few questions by e-mail, as research for my book? I’d be happy to answer any questions about Gil that you may have.
M
Sure – I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Okay, here’s a few questions for my book (to be published in Winter 2011 by ECW Press of Toronto). I’m looking for background information, even obscure details might help me find patterns.
1. Do you remember anything about Gil other than as described above? Interests, style of dress, personal history, opinions, etc.?
2. You hinted at the difficulties of working in a big NYC firm. Why exactly is it so stressful? What were the workload and expectations like for Gil, or a typical lawyer in his place?
3. Gil’s office “two doors down” from yours — can you fill in the picture? How was it decorated, what floor was it on, what directions did the windows face? What other offices and rooms were in the area?
4. Was it widely known that Gil was Canadian? Did he ever act like someone from a different country?
5. Did Gil have friends at the firm? A mentor?
6. What would Gil’s salary have been at the time? A bonus?
7. How has Gil viewed generally at the firm? What were the qualities that made him a successful corporate lawyer?
Thanks. You can post your answers here, or @ me directly.
Mark
[…] When the emptiness swallows you whole February 2010 28 comments […]
[…] I went through the same thing at Sullivan & Cromwell. The only senior associates I enjoyed working with were Gil Cornblum and one other guy, and they both quit within a few months. (For what happened to Gil after that, read “When the Emptiness Swallows you Whole.”) […]
I really enjoy these articles, but I can’t read them without thinking “Dang this guy seems really, really bitter and has a completely bleak outlook on all that is ‘Big Law.'” Perhaps the couchor should become the couchee?
For the record, these columns are meant to be funny. They have a serious message, but c’mon, lighten up. I’m not really expecting computer generated holograms of partners to greet clients in law firm reception lobbies. On the other hand, I am bitter, and I do have a bleak take on biglaw – this is obvious from my writing, and I’ve never denied it. Is that necessarily a problem? To quote Jack Nicholson’s character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – “Gee, Nurse Ratched, maybe you’re the one who’s crazy…” Maybe biglaw’s the one with the issues.
I knew Gil and also S&C. I disagree with your analysis.
I was just directed to this piece as part of a documentary on white-collar crime I will be participating in. Your description of what you believed motivated Gil; namely, that he “…was probably high as a kite on the rage he was discharging by stealing millions of dollars right under those partners’ noses” is largely accurate.
We had stopped the activity in 1999 because, from my perspective, the financial goal we set out had been reached (the activity began more as a result of happenstance than grand design (at least for me) so the “goal” that we achieved a year or so after that was only selected sometime into it). He came back to me near two years later to start things up again for, I believe, the reasons you note as he was making well over a million US living in Toronto (with a favorable exchange rate) and did not live as lavishly he could have or you imply in your piece. I should have said no and I think about him and my failure to do so almost every day. He was a good person.