Source for the goose…

Last Tuesday (15 January) we received a call from a law firm with an unusual announcement regarding the resignation of one of its partners. What made this strange was that it related to claims of substantive professional short-comings on the part of the individual and, like the proverbial iceberg, much of the substance of the story was carried in background briefings, leaving a only couple of anodyne on-the-record sentences that, on their own, would have left the casual reader utterly mystified.

This created a dilemma, since it was newsworthy - in the sense that it would have attracted reader interest - even if it was at heart a human interest story of little wider consequence to the wider legal market.

Ultimately, we decided to give the story a miss. This was for a number of reasons. Primarily, there was no way to write the piece without heavily referencing material from unattributable briefings and we were unable to contact the individual, leaving us with one side of the story. We also had no intention of referring to ‘insiders’ or ‘sources’ to get around the problem. Personally, when I see any news report with heavy reference to ‘insiders’ or ‘sources’, the credibility of the piece automatically nosedives.

And though we had considerable confidence that the information we were being given was correct, it felt wrong to lower the bar to rush a story into print (or online) when dealing with such sensitive material regarding an individual.

For me, the episode also came down to the need for a more measured tone in the legal press, an issue I’ve referred to several times recently. Legal Week has made efforts in this direction, notably in terms of giving subjects a fuller right to reply and restricting the use of unattributed quotes. We may well write a piece on the case - but not until we have time to check out all the angles and seek appropriate comment.

But this is also a reminder that such issues are not as simple as aggressive journalists pushing the envelope - in the cut-and-thrust of commercial life, managing different interests while maintaining some pretence to transparency is easier said than done for any organisation, even when acting with the best intentions.

To be fair to the firm in question, they were clearly acting in a good faith. From their point of view, this story was going to break and they were attempting to be transparent about it, while minimising the negative impact on the partner in question. The firm also, rightly, this week elected to go on the record with the facts of the case.

I guess the bottom line is about striking a balance. We’ve said that Legal Week is going to be more conservative about relying on this kind of sourcing, especially in situations that will inevitably mean getting only one side of the story. But that will apply as much as when it is law firms talking off the record as when it a frustrated former partner.

alex.novarese@legalweek.com