And Lindsay Lohan Really Was Suffering From ‘Exhaustion’
One of the allegations in Sullivan & Cromwell’s countersuit against its former associate, Aaron Charney, is that Charney leaked sensitive internal documents to the Wall Street Journal.
The firm’s Complaint implies that Charney physically removed — i.e., stole — confidential documents from the files of a partner. S&C alleges that Charney then leaked these materials to the Wall Street Journal.
And who, pray tell, was the Journal reporter who received the leaked documents? None other than Peter Lattman, author of the WSJ’s popular Law Blog, as well as a reporter for the print edition of the Journal.
Charney hasn’t admitted anything, so S&C’s allegations haven’t been proven (although the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong). How can the allegations be definitively established and thoroughly explored? Through the testimony of Peter Lattman, of course.
Thus far, Lattman isn’t giving up his source. When contacted by the New York Law Journal, the WSJ, through a spokesman, said that it “does not comment on sourcing.”
Has Peter Lattman said anything about his role in this controversy over at the Law Blog? No. Why not? Because he hasn’t been around.
Earlier today, a Lattman fan sent us this email:
Can you find out if Peter Lattman is away from the Law Blog this week because of his role in the S&C documents being made public? Usually he tells us when he’s going to be away. Who is Marmor?
After redacting our reader’s name and email address, we forwarded this query to the Law Blog. About ten minutes later, this post went up:
We’ve had some inquiries as to Peter Lattman’s whereabouts this week. Sorry we didn’t notify our loyal readership sooner, but Peter’s out of town through Wednesday on assignment. Meanwhile, thanks to colleague Jessica Marmor for stepping up and pitching in!
So P. Latt is away “on assignment.” Is that what they’re calling it these days? [FN1]
Very interesting. We previously speculated that Peter Lattman might make an appearance at Thursday’s hearing in S&C v. Charney. But in light of his delicate position at the eye of the storm, we doubt that he’ll show. In fact, he will probably try to stay as far away from 60 Centre Street as possible.
If “Charneygate” is the Biglaw version of the Valerie Plame saga, then Peter Lattman is our Judith Miller. Judy Miller went to jail to protect her sources. How far will Peter Lattman go? [FN2]
To lawyers who practice in First Amendment and media law: (1) Does New York have a reporter’s privilege and/or shield laws? (2) If so, what are the general standards that must be satisfied to invoke those protections?
[FN1] We have no reason to doubt that Peter Lattman is, in fact, out of town on assignment. But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.
[FN2] Yes, we know — any exposure Peter Lattman might have if he refuses to testify in a civil case is nothing compared to what Judith Miller faced. He might just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail (assuming he can even be held in contempt at all). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.
Update: This comment makes a good point (and our clouded thinking is probably a sign that we need to step away from the computer now). But we love drama and mischief-making, so please indulge us.
Where’s Peter? [WSJ Law Blog]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
(18) 
Comments
David Lat, this is basic logic 101.
Reporter's privilege doesn't matter here. We aren't trying to find out WHO tipped Lattman. We are trying to find out if CHARNEY tipped Lattman. Charney can't hide behind privilege.
While I appreciate the amount of blog posts you do per day I am beginning to worry you are working biglaw hours without a biglaw salary.
8:15, Charney may not be able to invoke the privilege himself, but if he did tip off Lattman, Charney can certainly lie, if he trusts Lattman won't divulge the truth because of a strong shield law.
Can't you take the Fifth Amendment in a deposition in a civil case? Can't Charney decline to answer all questions that would require him to admit that he committed theft?
In a wrongful death case (like OJ Simpson), are you allowed to ask the civil defendant questions that would basically amount to "did you commit murder"?
aren't his computer records discoverable?
I do know that if charney destroys them before discovery, there is an inference I know in the law that their destruction is a cover-up-- I remember that from my clerking days.
Non-lawyer, like pleading the Fifth is going to help Charney. That's basically an admission of guilt.
Aging S&C partner: "Oooooh, he pled the fifth when we asked him if he stole the docs!!! I guess we should have seen that coming. Curses!" [monocle falls out]
Judge Fried [over speaker phone during dep]: "Pleading the fifth, young man? In all my years, I have never seen a more clever defense. CASE DISMISSED!" [music swells, applause breaks out]
nonlawyer:
Not only can you take the fifth in a civil action, but as i recall from my bar-studying days, you must take the fifth in a civil proceeding or else you waive it and can't claim it later in a criminal proceeding. So yeah, he could take the fifth if he wanted to.
[singing]
Charney: There are! I say there are so many amendments in the constitution of the United States of Americaaaa! I can only choose one! I can only choose ooooooone!
I plead the fif! I plead the fif! FIVE! 1,2,3,4, fiiiif! Anything you say! FIIIF! Go ahead and ask me a question!
Fasman: How do...
Charney: Fif! I'd like to show all of you a secret document!
[pulls out a piece of paper saying "FiF"]
Fasman: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiif!
It's funny to treat something so trivial as something so major - criminal charges, please.
Peter Lattman is not going to be forced to testify.
The "leaking" of this document is nothing like blowing the cover of a CIA agent.
The S&C Complaint has a "tail that wags the dog" quality to it.
See N.Y. Civil Rights Law
to 9:07-- yes, he can claim the Fifth, but in a civil case (unlike a criminal case), the court is free to take an adverse inference from such silence.
Lat,
Why aren't you covering the NU Law imbroglio? It is much more interesting than Shanetta or even Charney! And it is even more serious, a debate about the values of society and expression in law schools.
Just a thought
white girls with asian guys
for OJ, though, the civil trial occurred after he'd already been acquitted. so i don't think he could have taken the fifth, because in order to invoke the fifth amendment there needs to be some threat of future prosecution for the crime, but the double jeopardy clause would have barred retrying OJ, so he would have no fear of future prosecution.
but this wouldn't help charney.
What's the NU Law imbroglio?
Lattman's like the Bob Novak of this scandal. He actually wrote about them but Charney may have offered them to other reporters who will now be subpoenaed.
Seriously though, S&C would never want to tangle with the press like that. The only possible issue is if Lattman encouraged Charney to steal the docs or something, didn't tell his editors and is now being cut loose. But I highly doubt that scenario.
You're not confused Lat.
Reporter's privilege against disclosing information received in confidence applies here. That they're asking specifically about one person (Charney) isn't relevant.
See New York Civil Rights 79-h(b)("Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, no professional journalist or newscaster...shall be adjudged in contempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding...for refusing or failing to disclose any news obtained or received in confidence or the identity of the source of any such news....").
Please return to unnecessary dramatizing and mischief-making.
Lat:
I share 8:29 p.m.'s concerns about your working too hard. However, I will go apeshit if you are not blogging non-motherf***ing-stop on Thursday, the day of the hearing. You can sleep, eat, get drunk, go on dates, etc. post-S&C v. Charney. For now your readers need you.