Schulte Roth & Zabel raised their clerkship bonus to 50/70 from 15K

"Shouldn't that douchebag at the Times delete the inadvertent email instead of writing a story on it?"

No. Do you know anything about reporters?

Re the update... wow. Cancel Thanksgiving next year, perhaps?

Was this an associate or a partner who did this?

Shame on the NYT for its dishonesty. The paper should have revealed how it learned this confidential information. After all, it did not promise anonymity to anyone in exchange for the story.

I suspect that if Lilly or Pepper Hamilton knew that the NYT inadvertently received the email they would have urged the paper not to print the info, and the NYT may well have been within its rights to print the information anyway. But it still should have revealed how it obtained the information. Concealing that from the reader, and from Lilly employees that they contacted for comment, was misleading.

Journalists I know complain that no one involved in important cases will talk to them, so they are forced to write stories based on very little substance (and based on anonymous sources). But the NYT's behavior here shows exactly why no one who is credible wants talk to reporters.

One question I have is just how did the email address for the Times reporter end up in the lawyers address book. Perhaps they are friends or perhaps the distribution wasn't so accidental.

I once dictated instructions to my secretary to send the copies on top of the file by messenger to opposing counsel with my cover letter.

When I later inquired, my secretary haplessly informed me that she transmitted the ENTIRE litigation file to opposing counsel!

Fortunately, the messenger had a radio, and he was stopped mid route before opposing counsel got his hands on all of our attorney client and work product privileged material.

Misdirected emails are a much bigger problem, especially with the auto complete address function enabled. It is easy to send an email to the wrong addressee if you are not very careful.

4:58 - It can only be possible that the lawyer had communicated with the reporter before. Who knows why - maybe the reported had been sniffing around before and the two had corresponded.

The recall function is totally useless in today's Blackberry-based legal world.

The attorney should either (a) be fired, or (b) if a partner, be "encouraged to seek other opportunities." That was a one-off mistake of a kind that shouldn't be forgiven, absent extraordinary circumstances. If I were Francis Devine, I'd also be contacting my malpractice carrier.

For what it's worth, reading Weinstein's decision leads to the conclusion that Berenson was pretty clearly suborning contempt. Getting documents from an anonymous source is one thing, but orchestrating a dissemination campaign (while strongarming the people into giving the NYT exclusive rights) is pretty sketchy. Woodward & Bernstein he ain't.

-- ET!

Guys at my high school complained that no one involved in important cases talked to them, so they were forced to write stories based on very little substance (and based on anonymous sources) all the time. It was not big deal.

Turn off the autocomplete function or you will eventually embarrass yourself.

Once you combine it with drinking and emailing late at night it is absolutely disastrous.

I am not an attorney at law, but as the late the Rev. Samuel Rutherford says in his Lex Rex or the Law and the Prince, a ruler who acts adversely to the interests of his subjects ought not to be allowed to rule.
Protecting a pharmaceutical giant which is almost definitely acting illegally, as judges are doing with respect to Eli Lilly & Co. and its marketing of Zyprexa, is a violation of intellect and conscience, in my opinion. Zyprexa consumption often leads to high blood sugar and development of Diabetes Mellitus, a serious incurable, in this case unnecessary, disease.
Richard M. Greene '51, Ignacio, Colo.

any word on the identity of the Pepper atty who mistakenly sent out that email??