Ex-Goldman In-House Lawyer Sues, Alleges Cover-Up and Retaliation Over Sexual Misconduct

A former Goldman Sachs in-house attorney, Marla Crawford, has filed a lawsuit alleging the firm failed to properly investigate and attempted to conceal allegations of sexual misconduct by a senior bank lawyer. The complaint, filed today, says Crawford raised concerns internally on behalf of an alleged victim and was later terminated in retaliation.

Crawford’s court filings describe a pattern in which the bank’s internal response prioritized secrecy and legal defense over fact-finding, according to the allegations. The suit contends that instead of conducting an independent, transparent investigation, the firm’s processes were geared toward limiting exposure and protecting senior personnel. Goldman Sachs has denied the claims in the filings.

The case pinpoints tensions that many large employers face when alleged misconduct involves senior executives and the company’s own legal team. In-house counsel and HR units often serve dual roles: protecting employees and defending the organization. When those roles collide, the result can be a breakdown in trust that chills reporting and leaves alleged victims feeling unprotected.

For Goldman staffers, the lawsuit raises immediate questions about the effectiveness and independence of internal complaint processes. Employees who rely on compliance, ethics, or EEO channels to raise sensitive concerns may fear retaliation or the perception that the company will prioritize institutional interests over impartial fact-finding. That can undermine morale, erode collaboration, and increase staff attrition among those who expect stronger protections.

The litigation also has potential implications beyond Goldman’s offices. Regulators and outside counsel scrutinize how financial firms handle allegations of misconduct, especially where senior leaders are implicated. Discovery in this suit could surface internal communications and decision-making documents that illuminate how the bank balances confidentiality, legal exposure, and accountability. That could prompt policy reviews inside Goldman and at peer institutions that seek to avoid similar controversies.

Legal experts say these cases often turn on documentation of investigative steps, who led them, and whether complainants faced adverse actions after raising concerns. Crawford’s complaint frames her termination as retaliatory, a claim that, if proven, could lead to remedies including reinstatement, damages, or changes to reporting procedures. The bank’s denial sets the stage for contested fact-finding during litigation.

For employees, the immediate takeaway is to monitor how the firm responds publicly and whether it revises internal safeguards. Expect heightened attention to investigation protocols, reporting protections, and the role of the legal department in handling allegations. The suit is likely to unfold over months, and its outcome could influence how large employers structure internal investigations and protect those who report misconduct.