David Lat

David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law. His writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Observer, Washingtonian magazine, and New York magazine. Prior to ATL, David worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as book reviews editor of the Yale Law Journal. David has received several awards for his work on ATL, including recognition as an ABA Journal Legal Rebel, a group of innovators within the legal profession, and inclusion as a member of the Fastcase 50, "the fifty most interesting, provocative, and courageous leaders in the world of law, scholarship, and legal technology." You can connect with him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter.

Posts by David Lat

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.
The Week Margaret Carlson Stephen Breyer invitation.jpg
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]

After 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:
Kodak Sullivan Cromwell email.jpg
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:
danos v avondale motion.jpg
More background over at the WSJ Law Blog.
Law Blog Lawyer of the Day: New Orleans’s Jim Garner [WSJ Law Blog]

Aaron Charney headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL.JPGOur 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.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C’s Shout Out to Charney”

Barry Ostrager Barry R Ostrager Simpson Thacher Bartlett STB.jpgWe now interrupt your regularly scheduled programming of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell to bring you some embarrassing news about another ultra-prestigious New York law firm: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
From Decision of the Day:

From the “it can happen to anyone” file, the Second Circuit dismisses a cross-appeal by Travelers Insurance Company because its law firm filed the notice of appeal one day late. After the losing party in the district court filed a notice of appeal, Travelers had 14 days to file its notice of cross-appeal. However, the firm calculated the 14 days from the date it received the notice, not from the date the notice was actually filed. The district court denied Traveler’s motion to extend the deadline by one day, explaining that this was a case of “garden variety attorney inattention” and not excusable neglect. The Second Circuit affirms (PDF).

The law firm that made this rookie mistake was one of the whitest of the white shoes, the venerable Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. The partners on the brief have stunning resumes, and the fifth-year associate has done plenty of litigating, given that he is admitted to practice in three jurisdictions and thirteen courts. So, yes, it can happen to anyone. (And in case you’re wondering, no, STB did not reject me.)

Decision of the Day is too nice to name the STB lawyers on the brief, but we have no such qualms. These are matters of public record. The attorneys who screwed up here are partner Barry R. Ostrager, partner Andrew T. Frankel, and associate Robert J. Pfister.
Barry Ostrager, by the way, is routinely named as one of the country’s top business litigators and trial lawyers. See, e.g., here, here, and here. He’s not particularly nice; as one litigator diplomatically observed, Ostrager “doesn’t suffer from the need to be loved.” But he has been very successful for his clients.
Given Ostrager’s stellar reputation, this latest defeat is particularly embarrassing. It’s one thing when you litigate a case as best you can, then lose because the law just isn’t on your side. It’s another thing when a federal trial judge finds you guilty of “garden variety attorney inattention,” and then an appeals court affirms, holding that your “attorney inadvertence” — a charitable phrasing — does not constitute “excusable neglect.” Great litigators, after all, are supposed to be careful, attentive, and detail-oriented.
But this is not Barry Ostrager’s only lapse. His failure to pay attention to detail extends to the men’s room — as we have had the misfortune of observing, firsthand.
Read all about it, if you dare — don’t say we didn’t warn you — after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Barry Ostrager of Simpson Thacher: Bad at Deadlines, Bathroom Etiquette”

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGWe 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)

ruler Shanetta Cutlar Shanetta Y Cutlar ruler.jpgDoes 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)

H Rodgin Cohen Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPG(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.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: Lambda LDEF Won’t Touch It With a Ten-Foot Pole”

Meryl Streep 2 Devil Wears Prada.jpgLately 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 headshot Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL.JPGThis 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.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C Rallies Its Allies”

Page 496 of 17411...492493494495496497498499500...1741