Almost as Much Fun as Gitmo: 'Docket Review' With Shanetta Cutlar
[Ed. note: It seems to be pure luck as to why we've been allowed to access this post through Movable Type, even though we can't access other ones or create new posts. So please refrain from asking us why we're publishing this rather than more salary coverage. Thanks.]
For those of you who have no interest in Biglaw pay raises, here's a bit of counterprogramming about Shanetta Cutlar.
In case you're not familiar with her, Shanetta Y. Cutlar is the Chief of the Special Litigation Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. She's a high-ranking DOJ official, and she's a colorful boss. Click here for a summary of her managerial quirks.
Ever since we started writing about her, lawyers who used to work under her have been emerging from the woodwork. They've been sending us a steady stream of stories about their time working for "SYC." Here's the latest, concerning a Shanetta Cutlar institution called "Docket Review":
Has anyone told you yet about "Docket Review" -- or rather, the Spanish Inquisition, which was probably less painless? Dear God, thinking back on it makes me cringe.When you first arrive in the office, everyone warns you about it. Never, EVER miss Docket Review; be AT YOUR DESK when summoned for your meeting, or face the wrath of Shanetta; and NEVER tell her you don't know the answer to a question. It's nothing short of terrorizing.
Docket Review happens four times a year. During this time period, everyone is stressed out, and nobody gets any work done. In short, the entire Section is in an uproar -- for days.
The process begins when an email goes around about DR scheduling. This immediately triggers a stampede of people going to the staff assistant's office to sign up -- it's insane.
When signing up for Docket Review, there's an elaborate strategy involved. Some people like to get it over with as soon as possible, so they sign up for the very first slot. The main concern is not to go immediately after certain people that you know will have a bad one, placing SYC in a foul mood. Another dreaded spot is the time slot right before lunch.
In advance of your Docket Review meeting, you have to write up a memo summarizing the status of your cases. This stupid memo must comply, to the letter, with certain SYC specifications. It must be uniform and perfect, down to the spacing and formatting, and completely free of typos -- as if you were filing it in Court.
At the appointed hour, you are summoned to SYC's conference room. This is, by the way, "her" conference room. No one else can ever use it, even if she's not using it herself or even if she's out of town.
When you enter the SYC conference room, Shanetta is seated at the far end. Her deputies are lined up on both sides of the table, and you're on the other end. Surprisingly, there's no spotlight, but you feel like one is glaring down on you anyway.
During the meeting, the deputies are COMPLETELY SILENT. They're in the room, but they're not permitted to talk. It's just you and Shanetta.
Docket Review is a total game of "Gotcha." SYC asks you a question she already knows the answer to, listens to your response, twists your words, and then somehow turns it all around on you -- so you look like an incompetent fool.
Here I must begrudgingly give her credit. Making you look like you know absolutely nothing about your own cases, even though you've been toiling away on them for months, is a peculiar kind of art form. And Shanetta is a master of it.
Rarely does a Docket Review go well. As a matter of fact, going well is the exception, certainly not the rule. Some reviews have ended in screaming matches that carry on down the hall. After several confrontations with one particular attorney, he was quickly moved by the front office to a different section, out of open season.
Another attorney, who came up with the brilliant idea of telling Shanetta he was leaving the Section during his Docket Review, was escorted out of his office by the FBI a few days later.
(Admittedly, there may have been some cause for that. He had told Shanetta that he wished the Section was like "a cartoon world," in which he could toss a bowling-ball shaped bomb into her office....)
Why do we suspect that he's not the only person who has harbored that particular fantasy?
Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)













Comments
Why are you publishing on this instead of salary coverage?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 26, 2007 02:50 PM
Whatever, get over the salaries! If you're firm hasn't matched yet, don't worry they will. Shanetta is much more interesting.
Posted by: anon | January 26, 2007 02:59 PM
That is so bad it's hilarious.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 26, 2007 03:04 PM
I LOVE Shanetta stories!!
Thank you for posting something so delicious as opposed to stupid salary stuff.
Hey you - if you can't figure out who's raised what where by now no one can help you! If you didn't get a raise yet, then maybe you don't deserve one you greedy bastard. Now get back to document review! Those emails won't find themselves.
Hee hee hee. I love Shanetta - she's my fave!
Posted by: LMAO | January 26, 2007 03:05 PM
Word to that. Keep these stories coming.
Posted by: Hell on wheels | January 26, 2007 03:05 PM
I interviewed with Civil Rights in the fall. Now that firms have jacked up their salaries and we see that DOJ employs raging psychopaths, I couldn't be happier at receiving my DOJ rejection.
What a joke.
Posted by: DOJsucks | January 26, 2007 03:25 PM
shanetta cutlar is my anti-drug
Posted by: Anonymous | January 26, 2007 03:46 PM
I've never met Shanetta, but she sounds like a real piece of work. Like an Anna Wintour for the Justice Department. Amazing that one person can generate so many horror stories.
Posted by: Ex-DOJer | January 26, 2007 04:00 PM
Does anyone ever send you anything positive (or at least neutral) about this woman? Or is it all this negative?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 26, 2007 04:01 PM
What do you mean by "positive"? We think it's ALL positive. We LOVE Shanetta Cutlar!!!
SYC is smart, tough, demanding, and decisive. These are all fine attributes for a supervisor to possess.
Even SYC's detractors, like Ty Clevenger, concede her intelligence (as you can see in his initial letter to Paul McNulty). Her strong will and forceful personality also can't be questioned.
Nobody has ever accused SYC of being unintelligent or wishy-washy. She is a force to be reckoned with!!!
Posted by: David Lat | January 26, 2007 04:12 PM
Any intelligence on how she's taking her Above the Law fame?
Posted by: GladIdon'tworkthere | January 26, 2007 04:21 PM
I am sick and tired of all of you jelly-backed spineless weasels who write in with your "anonymous" monikers. Even you cowards who used to work for Shanetta should be man or woman enough to step up to the plate and identify yourselves instead of hiding behind the anonymous tags. How gutless!
If you carefully check the records, you will find that real substantive civil rights work is going forth in the Special Litigation Section. I would say that this is quite an accomplishment considering the current administration and its horrible record on civil rights issues. No one talks about all the in-house sniping and back-stabbing that went on when she took the job. Plenty of mud-slinging and back-biting by would-be saboteurs galore. The hope was that she would go away and guess what - she's still standing. Some of these same folks are still in the Section (some are managers) and they have to work for the same woman they hoped (and tried) to destroy.
Let's not talk about those elitist whining bags of hot air from the Federalist Society (like Ty) who assumed that they could waltz into the Section without actually having to do real civil rights work. Just show up and let the entitlements begin. When she made it abundantly clear that there would be no free ride, some "turned tail and ran" while others who could not cut the mustard were shown the door. As hard as it is to believe, some of the attorneys that came in thru the front office pipeline proved to be just as inept and useless “as tits on a bull.” Good riddance! In this arena, there is no time to entertain whimps, crybabies, or prima donnas. Not when lives are on the line.
And don't tell me that some of the attacks were not racially motivated. Check yourselves on that.
Anyway, you idiots need to get a life and leave this woman alone.
Posted by: Thailour Preston | January 27, 2007 11:50 AM
Judging from what I have read, I would say that most of you are "below the law."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2007 12:08 PM
Thailour Preston: It sounds like you love Shanetta Cutlar as much as we do. Great stuff!
If you'd like to add to or expand upon it, please email us. Thanks!
Posted by: David Lat | January 27, 2007 12:16 PM
"[J]elly-backed spineless weasels"?
Um, so these people are supposed to identify themselves publicly -- when the allegations are that this woman viciously retaliates, destroys careers, and exacts revenge for all slights, real and imagined?
She allegedly verbally attacked a 1L INTERN for not smiling at her in the halls. And the tipsters are supposed to say, "Hi, I'm XXXX XXXX, and I worked for Shanetta Cutler?"
And you're accusing the people who decided to go to the CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, instead of some big law firm, of racism?!!??!
Get real. What goes around comes around. Maybe your idol shouldn't have treated people like shit if she didn't want them to start running their mouths.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2007 12:38 PM
shanetta provides biglaw morale at a fraction of the pay.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2007 12:39 PM
David, i don't get your whole "Shanetta is a fabulous diva who runs a tight ship" posture. I assume it's some effort to avoid problems of libel/defamation? Or tongue-in-cheek?
I mean, assuming every story you get is true for sake of argument, you don't REALLY think she's got, quote, "fine attributes for a supervisor to possess" do you?
I mean, she's basically destroyed her own future career with this behavior.
You think a supervisor who drives away the talent with their abuse, wasting money and hours of time, is doing a good job? That only works when the SUPERVISOR is a prodigious talent themselves, like Scott Rudin/Anna Wintour, and the abused underlings are merely there to answer phones and go fetch coffee and dry cleaning, and are completely fungible. Not when you are supervising actual talented and trained legal staff, who themselves are handling cases.
So when Scott Rudin throws a shoe at a 23 yr old, it's not the same as when a law firm partner throws a shoe at a 30 year old associate, and they walk out the door. Law organizations need talented staff. It's a pyramid shape. You can't drive them away and continue to operate successfully. See, e.g, S&C's current fears.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2007 12:51 PM
For the "anonymous" emailer with the poor punctuation who believes that every lawyer working for the Civil Rights Division is in it because they believe in the cause, I think you might be stuck on stupid. There are many dedicated folks who sign on because they have a passion for the work, but let's get real. There are many benefits to having the Department of Justice on one's resume. Punching the ticket is part of the game.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2007 04:01 PM
Trust me, there is barely any work going on there because of the morale and constant fear. Has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. They aren't going to spend their chits on this stuff, they just want it to run and not cause problems. No one working for her currently can post on here because DOJ has a press policy, you can't talk to them, period. So, the current crew is not going to risk their jobs because she would have them fired in a minute. One guy who left and went to an some org that SPL deals with on the other side got prosecuted for misconduct because he looked for the job and discussed it with the new employer during work hours. He went to JAIL after working for her.
Posted by: Krazy with a K she is . . . | January 27, 2007 05:42 PM
It has nothing to do with race, if she were orange or blue and acted like this it'd be inappropriate just the same.
Posted by: everything is not about race | January 27, 2007 05:45 PM
If she were tough and fair that'd be one thing, but she's unstable, mean and vindictive and that's the problem. She is an ALPHA DOG and beats down anyone who she thinks is too confident in her presence.
Posted by: SPLserf | January 27, 2007 05:48 PM
taking bets on the following:
- when shanetta resigns "for personal reasons."
- when shanetta sues atl
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2007 08:45 AM
What's fascinating about this story is here's a woman of color who is, by all accounts, brilliant and very hardworking. She could be a fed judge, or run for senator, or get appointed to some top position.
But her personality problems may be her downfall.
I will never understand people like that.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2007 01:54 PM
Hey Thailour Preston, whoever you are:
We're not leaving this woman alone - as soon as she became a presidential appointee, which she wanted, she stepped into public life. She became a public figure who gets paid with our tax money. The fact that there has been high turnover and low morale in her department suggests that tax dollars are being wasted. Plus, I've been treated the way that woman has treated (in a job I had prior to law school) everyone in her department and what better way to fight back against this unfair, power-tripping behavior. She obviously won't be fired or forced to resign anytime soon, but she can suffer in the meantime. There is NO EXCUSE for what she does! She thinks she's doing things right when the high turnover suggests otherwise and can't see the forest for the trees. Furthermore, I despise the fact that reverse discrimination is rampant in the federal government and she is clearly only where she is because of her race and being in the right place at the right time! She is a disgrace to her race, gender and the legal profession, and a nice comfortable room in hell has been reserved for her!
Posted by: another government lawyer | January 28, 2007 03:47 PM
Is she a political appointee or a civil servant?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2007 03:58 PM
If you look at one of the comments in a previous article, she is a political appointee:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/shanetta_y_cutlar_knows_how_to.php#comments
Despite having a less than stellar record as a civil servant, she was in the right place at the right time and G.W.B. had her promoted - gotta fill those race quotas and Shanetta was just the person for it. See, the Republican Party is all about affirmative action or something now, as they can't entirely depend on the white vote anymore.
Posted by: another government lawyer | January 28, 2007 06:09 PM
Thailour Preston . . . are you related to SYC?
Posted by: stickstogether | January 28, 2007 06:33 PM
While I don't agree with everything being said, I think it's important to get the facts straight. She is not a political appointee. She came in through the honors program. Nothing political about that. The best and brightest law students get into this program and it serves as a stepping stone for future DOJ attorneys. Trust me - she is no G.W.B. appointee as indicated. You should change your name to "another bitter misinformed government lawyer."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2007 06:36 PM
Hey Thailour - SYC only wants the names so she can sick the FBI on them. Revenge I say!! Or is it McCarthyism?
Posted by: anonymous out of fear free speech is dead | January 28, 2007 06:49 PM
Thailour -- sounds to me like you've had more than one conversation with SYC about this whole thing . . . "Just show up and let the entitlements begin. When she made it abundantly clear that there would be no free ride, some 'turned tail and ran' while others who could not cut the mustard were shown the door" . . . seems like she had it in for them before they even showed up. NO TRAINING, you should come out of law school and know how to do these cases, even if the section has gotten their ass kicked in nearly every published opinion, including one where she was the lead attorney. Check out U.S. v. State of Mich. 868 F.Supp. 890 (W.D.Mich., 1994). She was Shanetta Y. Brown back then. Misqouting a statue to a federal court, grounds for firing because of incompetance, or worse, wouldn't ya say? How come the section wasn't successful under the Clinton Admin either?
Also, how do you explain the bloodletting of anyone she didn't get along with when she was a line attorney when she took power? The numbers speak for themselves.
I know Thailour, you go work there and report back to us. We await the truth according to Thailour.
Posted by: you first . . . | January 28, 2007 06:52 PM
Hey Anonymous at 6:36pm, while I may be misinformed, I am not bitter at all. I am grateful to have a job at all, in today's competitive legal world. I work for assholes but they are nothing compared to Ms. Cutlar. They don't berate people publicly, they don't keep a conference room all to themselves that no one else can use, they don't give you a hard time for using the elevator when they are on it...is there any end to it?
Posted by: another government lawyer | January 28, 2007 09:41 PM
Shanetta technically is not a political appointee. Section chiefs are in the Senior Executive Service, and they are classified as civil service. They are the highest level below the deputy assistant attorneys general, who are political appointees outright.
As a practical matter, however, these appointments are very political. Shanetta's predecessor, Steve Rosenbaum, was transferred out by the Bush Administration because the International Association of Chiefs of Police didn't like the way Rosenbaum stuck it to police departments.
And contrary to what Shanetta may have told Thailour Preston at church last Sunday, her record of civil rights enforcement isn't so sterling. For starters, she's a lot softer on police departments than Rosenbaum was.
But Shanetta knows how to churn cases, so it looks like her section is doing a lot. Open 'em, settle 'em, close 'em. When you dig into the substance of the cases, you'll frequently find that SPL has entered into some weak settlement agreements.
One other thing: Shanetta was more than willing to drive out all the career libs that the Bush Administration wanted driven out. The vast majority of the people she ran out of SPL were not Federalist Society members.
Posted by: SPL refugee | January 29, 2007 12:29 AM
SPL Refugee or others currently at SPL:
I've heard all of the badmouthing and complaints, yet I (and I am sure many others) would still give their firstborn to work at SPL or other Divisions in Civil Rights. You read me correctly! How do you get hired (you should not mind sharing this since you got out or want out so badly). Who is doing the hiring and how do I get in? Is it heavily ivy-leagued or all political hires? Do I have to contact my Republican congresswoman or who? Are they only hiring conservatives? I like a good challenge. TIA.
KA
P.S. - I don't know this lady, but in some ways it just sounds like she runs a tight ship and is probably trying to get some of her lazy recruits in shipshape! What the hell did you people expect... a free ride in friggin DOJ? Come on people.
Posted by: Not scared... | January 29, 2007 01:11 AM
Dear Not scared -
For you not to know how to get hired by the feds means you are too stupid to be scared when you should be, she'd make quick work of you and your republican congresswoman, my pretty.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 04:14 AM
Tight ship is one thing, ghost ship is another.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 04:17 AM
docket review sounds hella fun. can i sign up even though i'm not at spl?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 07:46 AM
Let's keep the discussion on this going...so much more entertaining than reading about the big pay raises in the BigLaw world. Sure I'd love to make $160,000 or more per year, but all this talk about one BigLaw firm after another matching is getting old. Shanetta Cutlar never gets old! Interesting - she is soft on various police departments in the interest of getting one settlement after another. Sounds like she is just interested in volume - wants to be able to say that her department "litigated, settled and closed XXX cases of police brutality last year." Whether the settlement was anything great, it doesn't matter, just get the numbers as high as possible.
Posted by: another government lawyer | January 29, 2007 10:32 AM
Hey Not Scared, you wouldn't happen to be TMG, ol' church friend herself?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 11:25 PM
Thailour - that's not your real name JYJ, you're the one whose a spineless weasle who is not posting under their own name . . . stop trying to suck up.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2007 11:29 PM
I am glad someone finally posted a picture of this diva. The name "princess" fits her better. I am amazed the DOJ officials are just turning their heads to all of the abuse SYC has placed upon her present employees and the former ones that were lucky to escape her very abusive and unprofessional behavior. Rules were written and everyone at DOJ are instructed to follow them, but I guess the "princess" is above the law. Princess your time is coming sooner than you think.
Posted by: DOJ employee still | January 30, 2007 03:59 PM
I am glad someone finally posted a picture of this diva. The name "princess" fits her better. I am amazed the DOJ officials are just turning their heads to all of the abuse SYC has placed upon her present employees and the former ones that were lucky to escape her very abusive and unprofessional behavior. Rules were written and everyone at DOJ are instructed to follow them, but I guess the "princess" is above the law. Princess your time is coming sooner than you think.
Posted by: DOJ employee still | January 30, 2007 04:02 PM
I am glad someone finally posted a picture of this diva. The name "princess" fits her better. I am amazed the DOJ officials are just turning their heads to all of the abuse SYC has placed upon her present employees and the former ones that were lucky to escape her very abusive and unprofessional behavior. Rules were written and everyone at DOJ are instructed to follow them, but I guess the "princess" is above the law. Princess your time is coming sooner than you think.
Posted by: DOJ employee still | January 30, 2007 04:06 PM
I am glad someone finally posted a picture of this diva. The name "princess" fits her better. I am amazed the DOJ officials are just turning their heads to all of the abuse SYC has placed upon her present employees and the former ones that were lucky to escape her very abusive and unprofessional behavior. Rules were written and everyone at DOJ are instructed to follow them, but I guess the "princess" is above the law. Princess your time is coming sooner than you think.
Posted by: DOJ employee still | January 30, 2007 04:07 PM
Someone pointed out that Shanetta entered thru the honors program but failed to point out the very deputy/woman that fault to get her approved for the program, Shanetta fault against to get fired and eventually she just transferred to another Section. Despite Shanetta's tactics she is still a very successful attorney in Civil Rights.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 09:23 PM