Chirayu Rana’s lawyer exits the case and informs the court that Rana himself will represent his case against Lorna Hajdini.
At the first hearing in the Shirayu Rana case where the Nepalese-origin former JP Morgan banker alleged sexual harassment by his co-worker Lorna Hajdini, Shirayu Rana’s lawyer informed the court that he would withdraw from the case.
Daniel Kaiser, who previously represented Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers, submitted an agreement to be relieved of his position as Rana’s attorney just hours before their court appearance. However, Kaiser Rana appeared at the May 26 hearing and informed the court that in the future, Rana would be represented by himself, known as pro se, unti; Finds new advice.The case made headlines as Shirayu Rana made serious allegations against Haydini that she had made him her sex slave, allegations which Haydini and the company denied.
Many details of the case have emerged revealing that the company was willing to settle the case internally with Chirayu Rana and offered him money but he demanded more money and finally resorted to filing a lawsuit against Haidini.Heidney also changed counsel and is now represented by Samuel S. Saulson of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Chaulson represented Morgan Stanley in a 2018 case, in which an employee accused the bank and seven specific employees, four of whom were female, of discriminating against him.
In that case, Mahmood Latif, a gay Muslim colleague at Morgan Stanley, said the bank discriminated against and harassed him because of his sexual orientation, religion and other protected characteristics. Shortly after his hiring in 2017, Latif said a female supervisor at Morgan Stanley sexually assaulted him and subjected him to inappropriate touching and sexual harassment. Morgan Stanley settled Latif’s case for an undisclosed sum in 2021.Since the case was filed, Rana’s lawyer Kaiser has defended Rana and responded to numerous allegations. One such allegation is that Chirayu Rana once took bereavement leave from JPMorgan citing his father’s death while his father was still alive. The Tsar defended and said that it was because the father figure had died.
