We’re stepping away from the computer for a bit. We are attending this exciting event, a dinner and movie screening with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, sponsored by The Week.

Some posts, including Non-Sequiturs, will appear while we’re gone. But if some exciting news breaks and we’re slow to cover it, it’s because we’re spending quality time with SGB.
Finally, while we’re making administrative announcements, we’re planning to close our December 2006 Couple of the Month poll tomorrow, January 19, at 1 PM (Eastern time). You can cast your vote here.
The second poll we’re running, concerning which side you support in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, we will keep open for a while (at least through the weekend). You can vote in that poll by clicking here.
The Third Man [IMDb]
David Lat
Posts by David Lat
- Aaron Charney, Biglaw, Cheapness, Gay, Kaye Scholer, Mergers and Acquisitions, Money, Sullivan & Cromwell
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Hiring S&C Ain’t Cheap
By David LatAfter we posted the press release recognizing the Sullivan & Cromwell and Kaye Scholer lawyers who worked on the recent Onex / Kodak Health Group transaction, one of you pointed out:
Respectfully, you missed the lede in the Kodak post. Read Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint (PDF) re: Kodak’s complaints regarding fees and overstaffing. Then look at the attorney list for Kodak and compare the slim list for the other side.
S&C put out its major league press, earning how much in fees??? I’ll leave it to you to parse the Exhibit C memo. Have at it!
Point well-taken. The announcement mentions just five Kaye Scholer lawyers, versus almost thirty S&C lawyers, who worked on the deal.
In fairness to Sullivan, the Kaye Scholer part of the announcement names only partners, not associates (presumably omitted from the list). But it is true that a staggering number of S&C lawyers worked on this transaction — some 28 lawyers, about a third of them partners, from six different countries. Basically, everybody and their cousin-in-law worked on this deal.
Not surprisingly, Kodak squealed about the bill. For your reference, here’s Exhibit C to the Charney Complaint:

Partner Stephen Kotran notes that griping about the bill is “par for the course” for Kodak.
But Kodak might be wondering: Is overstaffing “par for the course” for Sullivan & Cromwell?
(Okay, that last line was gratuitously snarky. For all we know, Kodak was just delighted with the quality and cost of S&C’s legal representation. Heck, maybe we’ll drop Kodak a line and see if they have any comment. We’ll keep you posted.)
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
We’re not really that up on sports. There’s a reason we’ve delegated the provision of fantasy football advice to B Clerker.
Despite our ignorance of athletic pursuits, several readers have emailed us copies of this rather unusual motion. So, for your amusement, here it is:

More background over at the WSJ Law Blog.
Law Blog Lawyer of the Day: New Orleans’s Jim Garner [WSJ Law Blog]
Our eyes glaze over when we see, in The American Lawyer or over at NYLawyer.com, those laundry lists of lawyers who worked on various transactions. Usually we don’t bother reading them.
But several of you drew our attention to this interesting announcement:
Sullivan, Kaye Scholer Advise Purchase Of Kodak Medical Imaging Business [NYLawyer.com]
In case you haven’t registered for NYLawyer.com — yeah, registering for free sites is a bitch — we reprint the announcement, in full, after the jump.
Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C’s Shout Out to Charney”
We aim to be “fair and balanced” in our coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. We have printed several statements from Aaron Charney in these pages. We have a standing offer out to S&C to print any statements they’d like to make as well (although they have only availed themselves of it once).
We are happy, however, to print pro-S&C emails from unofficial sources too. The email below was forwarded to us by a tipster who received it through a listserv for gay lawyers.
The message struck us as thoughtful and well-written. Here it is (redactions ours, to keep our source anonymous — our default attribution policy):
I saw [another listserv member's] email regarding Sullivan and Cromwell, and as I summered there [recently], I wanted to give you all my perspective. I had a good experience there, and I think it would be a shame if this incident affected the firm’s ability to recruit LGBT lawyers.
For the record, I am not [currently affiliated] with the firm….
I thought S&C was one of the most gay-friendly firms I interviewed with. I had a long talk with a couple gay partners (one of whom headed the litigation department), and I was struck by how the acceptance of gay lawyers was not just superficial. Openly gay lawyers populate all levels of the firm, from the management committee to heads of departments to first-year associates.
I went on a couple gay summer events, including a huge summer dinner that the gay partners throw. I brought [my partner] to summer events. I never felt like I had to be “discreet” about my sexual orientation at the firm.
I never knew Aaron, but I’m not sure how connected with the other S&C gays he is. Let’s be honest though: the fact that some New York M&A attorneys might have engaged in mildly boorish behavior is not exactly newsworthy.
S&C, like all large NY firms, has its faults, but homophobia isn’t one of them. I encourage every member of [the listserv] who wants to do the big NY firm thing to apply there.
We thank the tipster who forwarded this to us, as well as the author of the original message (whom we contacted, and who gave us permission to post his message, with redactions).
Please continue to engage in robust dialogue in the comments. But if you have what might be described as a “special perspective” on the case — e.g., you know Aaron Charney personally, or you’re a gay lawyer at S&C — please feel free to email us. Thanks.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
- Civil Rights, Department of Justice, Litigatrix, Ridiculousness, Shanetta Cutlar, Vicious Infighting
Shanetta Y. Cutlar Knows How To Wield a Ruler
By David Lat
Does she use a ruler to whale on the summer interns, when they pass her in the hallway and fail to greet her?
Maybe; we wouldn’t be surprised. But we actually had something else in mind.
From yet another former member of the Special Litigation Section of the Justice Department, who had the pleasure of working under section chief Shanetta Cutlar:
I can remember how Shanetta used to offer the ombudsman’s services at EVERY staff meeting (don’t tell me no one was aware of the low morale)…
How Shanetta ordered the entire staff — attorneys, paralegals, investigators, staff — to take 2 hours of mandatory training in beginning word processing (mostly how to use the spell checker)…
How Shanetta announced in a staff meeting that whenever she reviews a document, she reads it with a ruler, to ensure there are no extra spaces…
What a great use of her time. No wonder she never had the time to with us.
Your taxpayer dollars at work: Paying the six-figure salary of a schoolmarm with a J.D.
P.S. We’re thinking of changing the name of this site to the “Aaron Charney and Shanetta Cutlar Blog.” We could blog full-time about nothing else. And we have enough material in our inbox about these two matters to keep us going for days (with more tips constantly arriving).
Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)
- Aaron Charney, Alexandra Korry, Anna Schneider-Mayerson, Biglaw, Gay, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Lambda Legal, New York Observer, Public Interest, Sullivan & Cromwell
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Lambda LDEF Won’t Touch It With a Ten-Foot Pole
By David Lat
(Because, you know, they have better things to do with their ten-foot poles.)
The New York Observer’s Anna Schneider-Mayerson has penned an interesting article on Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. Here’s the link.
Random aside: When ATL holds its “Legal Journalist Hotties Contest,” expect Anna Schneider-Mayerson — a Harvard-educated blonde beauty — to give Jan Crawford Greenburg a run for her money.
Much of Schneider-Mayerson’s article will be familiar to regular readers of Above the Law (since we’ve been “covering the crap” out of this case, as promised). But the piece does contain some new information. Like this:
Mr. Charney said he called Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal advocacy organization that represents gay clients on civil-rights-related issues, to aid in his case.
“I called the hotline, spoke to the representative who answered, and was told I would hear back from them,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Days later they returned my call and informed me that they were not interested in pursuing my matter against S&C.”
(A representative at Lambda contacted by The Observer said it does not comment on these matters.)
The Lambda diss is the juiciest tidbit. But the NYO piece contains a few other highlights, which we reprint after the jump.
Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Lambda LDEF Won’t Touch It With a Ten-Foot Pole”
- Christopher Christie, Civil Rights, Department of Justice, Litigatrix, Movies, Shanetta Cutlar, U.S. Attorneys Offices, Vicious Infighting
ATL Public Service Announcement: Never Share an Elevator With Shanetta Y. Cutlar
By David Lat
Lately we’ve been distracted by the salacious, sensational lawsuit of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. But fear not, loyal readers — we have not forgotten about Shanetta Y. Cutlar, the commendably strong-willed chief of the Special Litigation Section, in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
First, a cinematic digression. Early in The Devil Wears Prada, there’s a great scene in which high-powered editrix Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) steps onto an elevator. A junior magazine staffer is already inside the car. But as soon as Miranda sets foot in it, the terrified staffer mutters an apology and flees, so Miranda can ride the elevator alone.
This type of incident doesn’t happen just in the shiny Gotham tower of Conde Nast Elias-Clarke Publications. It also happens, surprisingly enough, at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington.
From an email we received from an attorney in the Special Litigation Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, presided over by the diva-licious Shanetta Cutlar:
Do you know how Shanetta reacts when someone reaches to stop the elevator when she is on it? How she chews them out for daring to stop the elevator she is on — because she is more important, and could be on her way to a meeting with the “front office”?
Or, how no one goes NEAR the elevators between 3:45pm & 4:30pm, without a drop-dead emergency, for fear of running into Shanetta, and being grilled about where one is going? Then called into her office the next day, to discuss “professionalism” — despite the fact that you got in that morning way before she did?
Props to Shanetta Cutlar for wearing her authority like an ermine-trimmed cloak. We never had a boss this cool when we worked for the DOJ.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Once we were on a completely packed elevator in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark (D.N.J.), riding down from the ninth floor. The elevator was full because the entire office was headed to the second floor, for an “all hands” meeting.
The elevator stopped on the seventh floor, the “power floor” of 970 Broad Street. The doors opened, to reveal the U.S. Attorney himself, Chris Christie, and two other members of the “front office.” They were waiting, of course, for the elevator.
Several of us immediately tried to get off the crowded elevator, to make room for Christie and his lieutenants. But he wouldn’t hear of it. He insisted on waiting for the next one, and he practically pushed everyone back into the car. How lame!
WWSCD? She would have ordered everyone off that packed elevator, so she could ride down to the second floor — in solitude.
And THAT, boys and girls, is what you call leadership.
P.S. Interesting questions raised in this recent comment. Do any of you SPLers know the answers?
Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)
- Aaron Charney, Biglaw, David Braff, Gay, John Scheich, LeGal, Media and Journalism, Movies, Sullivan & Cromwell
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C Rallies Its Allies
By David Lat
This morning brings some fresh news coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. ABC News, for example, has this story.
Most of the piece consists of background info, which ATL readers are already familiar with. But there is some new material concerning S&C and gay attorneys in general:
[T]he firm has a good reputation among gay lawyers. Among the 25 top law firms in New York surveyed in 2003, Sullivan & Cromwell had the highest percentage of gay, lesbian and transgender partners — almost 7 percent, although it ranked much lower — at 17th — for associates, which constitutes 1.48 percent of the total.
“Sullivan Cromwell is far from prejudiced in any way,” says John Scheich, the first vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Law Association of New York, adding that the firm often buys a table at his group’s annual fundraising dinner dance. “I don’t know Aaron Charney or the details of his case, but if I had to line up on one side or the other, I would have to line up with David H. Braff [an openly gay partner at the firm] and Sullivan Cromwell.”
Watch out, Aaron. The gay legal mafiosos are circling their wagons. Tables at those gay fundraisers cost small fortunes — and S&C is calling in its chits.
Sullivan & Cromwell itself will probably be tight-lipped about the case, since it would be unseemly for such a white-shoe law firm to engage in an aggressive public relations effort. But they will surely work behind the scenes to get friendly gay leaders, such as John Scheich, to speak out in their defense. (Cf. Hillary Clinton’s media strategy, in which she doesn’t criticize enemies herself, leaving such dirty work to Howard Wolfson and other minions.)
The ABC article also contains some interesting info about the plight of gay lawyers in the profession more generally. Some excerpts, after the jump.
Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C Rallies Its Allies”




