Publicizing this poor guy's mistake is mean Lat

Tell it to The Recorder. They're the ones who did a print article - you know, dead trees - about this guy's screw-up. They even titled the item "Oops."

This reminds me of another M. Todd.

I agree - further publicizing the mistake, plus the picture = mean.

Very mean. What's next? Next you'll have an article with my picture and the caption "He goes to a tier 2."

It's easy to point out mistakes when you don't practice.

Lat-

I sense that the tide is turning against you. You once dished out harmless, gossipy fun (judicial hotties, for example), but several of your recent posts have a mean-streak to them, and your readers are disturbed by it. This one is just the latest example. Apart from the tacky factor, you have to know your audience. You have to know that law students and associates (who I assume are your core demographic) aren't going to like a post like this one. The poor dude, as you say, made an understandable error, probably induced by some insomnia. Cut him a break and at least take down the picture.

I know that there's pressure to blog, but I feel like you're throwing some people under the bus too easily or quickly or both.

Just my 2 cents.

2:03, You have to learn that you don't speak for Lat's audience.

That that can, do; those that can't, blog.

ouch. this is a bit mean, what with the pic and all.

and how about your response to judge koziniski's open letter?

Are lawyers more thin-skinned than media or political types? Gawker and Wonkette are x10 more snarky than ATL - even downright vicious sometimes.

David:

i second 2:03. the associated made an error. he should not "ridiculed" in these pages. his picture should be taken down.

If you want to see mean look at the reception my resume got during 2L summer recruiting.

Dear Lat,

This is unacceptable. It's one thing to poke fun at a firm, a public official, or named litigants, but the unabashed slamming of an individual associate for an error that any of us could have made (or could make in the future) is just plain mean. The picture with a direct link to his attorney bio is simply unnecessary. Especially after the whole NYLS conference photo snafu - Lat, you should know better. The fact that you stole the scoop from another publication doesn't make it right.

Your blog has gone from bad to worse. Your credibility is shot. This is the last time I'll be visiting your site. (I hope your advertisers read the comments sections).

Sincerely,
Hoping Lat Cleans Up His Act

2:14, No - the advertisers smartly base decisions on webhits and not negative comments, which are all likely written by the same person.

I feel bad for the guy. This cannot be good for his career - an unfortunate mistake, but he deserves our empathy as fellow associates and not ridicule.

Who knew lawyers to be so sensitive?

1. This post simply combines (a) an article from a mainstream media publication, and (b) a publicly-available law firm headshot.

2. By the end of the day, this post will be pushed off the front page of the blog.

3. The Recorder is read by many more people than this blog - people senior to this guy, who might someday be in a position to make a decision about his professional future.

ATL is read by a bunch of law students and junior associates.

Get over yourselves. This made the news at law.com and WSJ Law Blog also. Anyone can get this guy's information.

This seems like the main take-away:

"We do feel badly, however, for Mr. Scott. We're guessing he was operating under inadequate sleep. And when associates are exhausted and overworked, mistakes will get made."

Sort of like the argument in favor of limiting the hours of medical residents in hospitals.

I assume that all the people who have no problem with this story as it is currently is posted would have no objection to it if they had committed the same error and it was their headshot up there.

2:14 pm: Your switching to different reading material is for the best.

ATL is a tabloid and a blog. The words "tabloid" and "blog" are synonymous with "mean," "snarky," "offensive," and "in questionable taste."

Fwiw, Lat has publicly admitted to falling asleep during a deposition, which is pretty embarrassing:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/09/another_atypical_deposition.php

He chalked it up to sleep deprivation, which probably explains the last sentence of the post:

"We do feel badly, however, for Mr. Scott. We're guessing he was operating under inadequate sleep. And when associates are exhausted and overworked, mistakes will get made."

"I assume that all the people who have no problem with this story as it is currently is posted would have no objection to it if they had committed the same error and it was their headshot up there."

So true. I can at least admit to myself that I could easily make this kind of mistake and that I'd be frigging mortified if it got out.

I used to read UTR and switched here too, but this goes over the top and displays of basic lack of human decency, respect towards earnest others, and poor judgment. I'm out too.

"respect towards earnest others"

?

You sound like a genius. I really think less carping losers reading this blog is an unqualified plus.

What a bunch of whiners. If you're unhappy with the coverage then stop coming here and watch from afar as traffic dries up. Then Lat will post nice, happy stories about puppies.

This is legit news for a host of reasons. The guy made a mistake in a high profile case that has ramifications for virtually any corporation. It's been widely covered and the photo came from a publicly accessible Web site.

Writing for lawyers has to be one of the worst jobs ever, especially when anonymous sniping is allowed in the comments.

I agree with the the-post-is-gratuitously-mean crowd.

Jesus people! Were you all given gold stars in school? Did your teachers only use green markers as to not offend you when you made a mistake, or *gasp* actually got an answer flat out wrong?

Bring back the red pen! Return the "C" grade to AVERAGE!

All you sissies need to nut up. This is what we come here for. Granted, this isn't the delicious lawyer screw-up we would salivate over, like the Winston/Latham "monkey scribe" voicemail, but we'll take what we can get (and like it).

Let me add my voice to the "shut up, whiners" side of the argument. This is a legal tabloid, not a school newspaper, who cares if feelings get hurt. Tabloids are meant to be snarky and sometimes when people f up and get called on it, it will seem mean. People don't go to Perez or others for touchy feely shit; they shouldn't expect that here either.

After going through all the trouble to file a complaint under seal in the first place, this guy sends the secret documents to open court. He has made 5 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees moot for a STUPID mistake. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Being a high profile litigator requires perfection, always.

If you think it's mean to publicize this guy's mistake, you are either: 1) too nice to work in a law firm (which is fine, I am too nice to work in a law firm); or 2) not smart enough to work in a law firm (which is fine, though I am smart enough to work in a law firm).

Holy shit! That would suck!

After going through all the trouble to file a complaint under seal in the first place, this guy sends the secret documents to open court. He has made 5 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees moot for a STUPID mistake. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Being a high profile litigator requires perfection, always.

If you think it's mean to publicize this guy's mistake, you are either: 1) too nice to work in a law firm (which is fine, I am too nice to work in a law firm); or 2) not smart enough to work in a law firm (which is fine, though I am smart enough to work in a law firm).

Lat is backing down. The link to his bio has been taken down! The nice guys win!

Huh? I still see a link to the guy's bio (last paragraph of block quote).

all of you are missing the most interesting tidbit here...how does the recorder know this associate mistakenly filed it? he's a 4 th y ear associate in a major litigation...no way he did this on his own...probably a partner simply let him sign the complaint since he worked on it, and so the recorder (and lat) assume this associate was the one responsible for including it as an attachment when it could have been a number of other people who worked on this...simply b/c this associate signed the complaint (assumign that's true) doesn't mean he's responsible for the snafu.

3:52

You are an idiot.

Lat,

These hating commenters are pussies. Keep up the good work.

-Brutus

Anony - I was thinking the same exact thing.

4PM: According to the Recorder article, it looks like Orrick is making Todd Scott take the fall:

"In a filing for an emergency hearing on Tuesday, Orrick partner James Kramer wrote that Scott thought the complaint had been filed under seal when Scott included it as an exhibit to his own declaration."

4:00-

If he "simply" signed the motion (not the complaint, because the motion is the filing that disclosed the document - an interesting tidbit you may have missed), he is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the filing, as in responsible in the eyes of the court responsible.

And who is supposed to check all the attachments to a motion to confirm whether they are in order? The paralegal the associate is supervising, and thus is responsible for? Or, the nice partner who let him sign the paper in the first place?

4:05...i agree...and backing up my earlier point, so the associate signs a declaration and attaches the complaint (that was filed under seal) to his declaration...a partner definitely reviewed and possibly wrote his declaration and reviewed the exhibits...moreover, no way in hell this associate went down to court to file the declaration. the declaration was to be public but not the exhibit and someone had to tell the clerk that so i am sure one of orrick's messenger's brought it down and didn't know it...

orrick might as well cut his legs off the way they are throwing him under the bus...he's a fourth year w/ no power to file anything w/o review.

After going through all the trouble to file a complaint under seal in the first place, this guy sends the secret documents to open court. He has made 5 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees moot for a STUPID mistake. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Being a high profile litigator requires perfection, always.

Agreed. This is a very serious, very real error. It deserves pointing out, publicly. If the guy didn't want to accept responsibility for the filing he shouldn't have signed it. It's an interesting story and an important cautionary tale. Have some dignity, Lat, and continue to run stories like this as they come along.

Chi-2L, bwahahaha! Does he still publicly mock LLMs for not being American?

Had it gone well, the partner would've taken credit. Now that there's a fuck-up, the partner's distancing himself.

Typical.

i don't care about the story, but it's pretty fucking appalling when someone as smart as david lat uses such horrifying grammar: "feel badly"???

I agree with 4:00. Although he may have signed the pleading in question, there is no way a 4th year associate bears responsibility for this mistake. Although blame is pushed downward, responsibility flows upward in this profession.

6:02 -- maybe that's precisely the problem. Lat's admitting that he's being insensitive, because he feels BADLY -- not bad. Remedial sensitivity training could be the answer.

Chicago Grad,
No I've never seen that, but from what I hear Lat could fill a blog with M. Todd stories.
He's even profiled on youtube! (at 2:20 in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K9uGmvw8cg
Ch 2L

2L, I love that video! I have friends in it!

God, I miss law school...

Lat, I'm with Chi-2L. M. Todd Henderson is begging to be lampooned on the (web)pages of this fine publication.

http://www.myspace.com/thecolonelmc