Bar Exams, Biglaw, Blogging, Email Scandals, Emily Pataki, New York Observer, Politics, White & Case, WSJ Law Blog

The Emily Pataki Story: Credit Where Credit Is Due

By  
on

PG of De Novo, in a post entitled Bad Judgment at White & Case and ATL, had this to say about our Emily Pataki coverage:

I’m disappointed to see that someone forwarded this to David Lat, and that he chose to publish it. The July 2006 New York Bar Exam pass list is not yet public, and while I might expect someone online to pick through the list when it is, pointing out people who were known to have taken the bar yet not passed, to publicize a single person’s failure and her reaction to it is a particular kind of bad taste that I hadn’t expected of either White & Case employees or of Above the Law.

Reprinted below is the comment that we left on De Novo in response:

I actually can’t take credit for breaking this story. I actually first learned about it in a mainstream media blog, the WSJ Law Blog:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/11/14/emily-patakis-email/

But the Wall Street Journal didn’t break this story either. The source with the scoop was actually ANOTHER MSM blog, the New York Observer’s widely read politics blog, The Politicker:

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/11/first-setback.html

So, PG, please don’t hang this all on me just because I’m a blogger (and we bloggers are such easy targets, especially on matters of journalistic ethics). I only touched this story after two MSM organs did — even though I had the email much earlier.

Of course, once the Wall Street Journal and the New York Observer decided to cover this story — a story which, you must admit, lies squarely within the territory of Above the Law — I couldn’t just sit on the sidelines.

PG posted a response to our response; if we get around to it, we’ll offer our rebuttal later today.
Bad Judgment at White & Case and ATL [De Novo]

Sponsored

Topics