David, I'm a big fan, but what is the point of redacting her name if you put up the link whereby someone could see the unredacted caption in one click?

Lat, how pointless is it to take out the person's name then provide a link to the page where it is featured??

No colorable claim here.

manslaughter

Dude. This photo is so not a big deal.

To telegraph to the readers that the person should not be named in the comments?

HAHAHAHAH nice work Lat. This namefear is too funny - we should come up with a term for it. Namensfurcht?

LOL - manslaughter. Possibly felony murder, but manslaughter?

Please. All this drama for showing a bit of thigh?

An essay competition? The smart money is on the associate who works with an editor.

Insofar as you could prove that the picture chosen is objectionable to the average person, a claim of false light could work. Only problem there -- NY doesn't recognize that privacy tort. In fact, the only privacy tort that NY recognizes is for appropriating one's name or picture for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, I think her consent will likely preclude the appropriation claim. The only other claim I can think of would be intentional infliction of emotional distress, but obviously there would be some hurdles to recovery there, too.

Right of publicity? But the consent and news-gathering aspects are problems.

Hey everyone, aren't we overlooking the best tort of all... the tort of OUTRAGE!!!

let's get real here. the girl works for a firm that's a sweatshop. you don't think she has bigger problems?

Women are also saving more than men because they, invariably, aren't shelling out for all those drinks at the bars, fancy dinners with their dates, etc.

Really? This picture is supposed to be lascivious? Really?

Really . . . can someone explain why this is a bad picture or what the big deal is?

And the article quotes a Dr. Beveridge.

Amen 1:16, amen.

Hmm, how exactly is she 24 and already a lawyer? Unless she skipped grades or something, at best she is a recent law school grad awaiting bar exam results. More likely, she's a summer associate. Either way, she's not a lawyer.

She posed for the picture. I am sure NYT had her sign a release so they could use it. If she wanted to have final approval of shots, she should have demanded that be added to the release agreement (but, since I am sure they have a stock release that they refuse to change, I am sure they would have just not used her picture--which is what she wanted anyway, so that is why she assumed this risk).

No cause of action, but pretty nice picture. I found the focus on the, ah, "gap" to be paticularly evocative of the question asked--Is it a focus on her femininity as a source of power? Or is it merely exploiting her, as her employer no doubt does? Ah, j'adore le NYT.

1:25 -- If you google her, you'll find out that she was admitted to the bar in 2006. Graduate HS at 17. Graduate college at 20. Graduate law school at 23. Pass bar and make a stink about a picture at 24. The math works for me.

She must be a full-time associate. She's in Martindale Hubbell, which lists her as admitted in 2006.

1:28 - Jinx

are all of you so cramped up in your offices that you have never seen a woman in a bathing suit? this is the talabanization of above the law. you can definitely be a lawyer at 24. all you have to do is graduate high school at 17 or finish college in three years using AP credits.

1:32, ATL is a legal TABLOID, not a legal TALIBAN.

In answer to your question: YES.

You're all missing the point here. She's sitting outside, presumably around lunchtime, in work clothes, which means she is WASTING BILLABLE HOUR TIME DURING THE WEEK.

I'm sure her firm will flaggelate her for such transgressions and the 45-minutes of unaccounted for time on her timesheet.

There's no reason she can't be an associate. I've got an August birthday; skipped a year of high school and so graduated at 16; turned 17 when I started college; finished college at 20; finished law school at 23; started work post-bar exam right when I turned 24. And there was a guy a couple months younger than me in my law school class. Not that unusual.

She is an associate at Paul Weiss

Why is the NYT so obssessed with people's academic pedigree and social status? It makes me sick! That's why I only read the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

http://www.paulweiss.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=40

Because the NYT is so full of itself, and they all believe they run the best newspaper in the entire world, that's why their so into pedigree. It's pathetic. No Murdoch fan here, but I hope he eats their lunch.

Um, did she get her firm's permission to be interviewed? I knew somebody in a consulting firm who got in trouble for even benign quotes like this because their firms want their associates/consultants/etc to remain as invisible as possible. I mean, really, what possible reason/benefit could it be for her to be in this article? Why would she even agree to be quoted, let alone photographed? I'm always surprised when extremely bright people somehow get hoodwinked. If a newspaper says, hey can we get a quote? The answer is always, "no." I don't care if the newspaper article is "how 'bout them Yankees?" Cause isht like this happens all the time. Even though I think there is nothing interesting/scandalous/unprofessional/whatever about the photo or comment, you can bet she's not paranoid cause there are a handful of vengeful, spiteful partners at her firm who are thinking the same things as she is.

You are the master of the unspoken word/photo, and the slave to the spoken one -- (Russian proverb)

I find the light post sprouting of her head particularly attractive.

LMAO at 2:09! She looks like she's on those Tivo commercials!

Wow, 2:06...
Please take the rest of the day and weekend off. You need some rest.