Comments on: After lawyer has public meltdown, is he entitled to privacy?

By: Caitlin Kelly

Caitlin Kelly — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:17:17 +0000

Sort of eerily fascinating that someone can survive law school, get hired at a major firm and still have no clue about basic office etiquette. It’s pretty normal to feel passionately about an issue that arises at work but common sense, (or the simple desire to remain employed for a while longer) usually ensures those feelings aren’t committed to publicly shared media.

By: marinab

marinab — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:51:28 +0000

Although I sincerely agree with the kid’s sentiments, sound judgment is part of being a good lawyer, and this kid most decidedly does not have sound judgment.

Whether you release his/her name or not isn’t going to have much of an impact on his/her career trajectory – the lawyer community is like a small town. The chances that a prospective employer will not know about this are slim indeed.

By: More News From the Firm that Represented the Redskins « Turtle Talk

More News From the Firm that Represented the Redskins « Turtle Talk — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:22:18 +0000

[...] P.S. As we said yesterday, “Please don’t disclose identities in the comments or we will ban you from the wagon.” We’ve really thought about this, a lot. [...]

By: nyclawyer

nyclawyer — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:20:17 +0000

I respectfully disagree with Hastings’ comment. This was an email sent by a lawyer to other lawyers and staff within his firm. While there were no client confidences revealed in his email it is generally understood that it is bad form to share with the outside world the internal communications of a law firm and worse than bad form to attribute by name the author(s) of those communications (or the internal communications of professional staff, at the very minimum). What appears to be a clear and unmitigated failure to understand the hierarchy at Quinn (or a brazen decision to ignore it) aside, I don’t think that sharing his name with the outside world adds anything to the story and might have the added and unwanted effect of chilling the distribution of these emails that we all find so entertaining. Publishing them on ATL is one thing, but giving up the poor (and clueless) kid’s name is simply not necessary.

Now, on a serious note, what’s the kid’s name?

By: Michael Hastings

Michael Hastings — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:28:20 +0000

This is the best e-maelstrom I’ve read in awhile. (Also, I’ve been waiting to use the the word e-maelstrom in public. Lame, yes.)

I have a sort of admiration for the First Year, though I wonder if he’s having some kind of Michael Clayton-esque manic episode. That kind of insubordination would not go over well at any company…But the fact he doesn’t seem to give a damn is pretty funny.

As for privacy, I can’t see how there’s any expectation in this case. If you all don’t want to release his name, that’s cool, but I don’t think there’s any moral/ethical issue here.

In general, one shouldn’t assume any kind of privacy at all with email. My feeling is that anything one puts in email they should be prepared to read on the front page of the NYT the next day. That’s hyperbolic, a rule we all break, but also a good way to look at the “dangers” of the medium.

As an aside, to quote a colleague: “Make love by email, make war by phone.”