Ray Malone's Commentary

I have no knowledge on this matter. What follows is theory. It is based on the simple analytical technique of asking why does someone do something that is normally not done. What the lawyer did in the Times and adoption records situation is unusual. What follows is theory of why a lawyer would do what this lawyer did.

Lawyers don't normally go to members of the press to report those who have tried to retain them. Lawyers who do that, don't find many potential clients walking in their door.

With that in mind let me concoct a theory of what took place. It would be interesting to follow up to see if there is any truth to my theory. It is only a theory .. but I think it is plausible.

What if one of the lawyers the Times reporter contacted was the one that that handled the adoption for Roberts. What if the Times knew he was the lawyer that handled the adoption for Roberts. A reporter could easily find someone that knew who that lawyer was. I keep asking what other lawyer could get access to a copy of court's sealed records and supply them to the Times with out the court knowing who did it? Judges and court employees are not likely to purloin a copy of sealed records for a reporter. That is a serious crime. Judges get really ticked if an employee steals sealed court records for anyone. ...especially adoption records. Angry judges do not give short sentences.

But a copy of those adoption records are undoubtedly in the files of lawyers who handled the case. If the lawyer did give the Time Reporter the records he would have to keep his mouth shut tight. Who would know the source of those records besides the lawyer and the Times? The Times I suspect did not really consider the answer to that last question. At least from the Lawyers standpoint.

Whatever words the Times used to request the lawyers services, it seems likely what the Lawyer heard was ... "We are certain you can be hired to break the law, and we are willing to pay!!!" That had to scare the excrement out of any lawyer who had a way to accomplish what the Times wanted.

The lawyer would have to assume that the Times reporter had told others about contacting him for the adoption records... Perhaps his boss at the Times and other employees at the paper knew about the request. Reporters don't have budgets to hire lawyers. Someone else had to authorize the request to pay for his legal services. Perhaps someone who knew about the contact had told others. The lawyer could not be sure. It was a very scary proposition for a lawyer. Lots of people could know he had been approached.

The lawyer likely reasoned that if he turned the Times down and they managed to dig up some adoption dirt elsewhere ... like South America ... the lawyer would get blamed. The person who told the Times reporter the identity of the adoption lawyer, would put two and two together. That person was likely a friend of Roberts. If he gave the records to the Times and they used them, it is quite likely the lawyer would also be blamed. That would be very bad for business and could lead to disbarment.

If this be true , then the Lawyer had no choice but to go public with Drudge, Hume and others. The lawyer had to protect his own reputation.

Reporters are a strange breed. They feel they are not subject to the same rules the rest of us are bound by. I suspect the Times bosses thought like reporters. What is the down side of trying to get the records this way, they asked themselves? . The worst that could happen was the lawyer would refuse to give them the records. They had to believe that Lawyers don't got public about potential clients... It is not done.

Their other option is they asked a lawyer with no connection to the adoption if there was a way to get the records. Anyone who has been a reporter for more than a week, ,knows the chances of getting sealed court records by legal means in a case like this are zero. They also had to know that the best chance to get the records was from a lawyer that represented someone in the adoption case. I think that is what they did.

I can not believe that the New York Times did not know the only way to get these records was to break the law.

What they did is no different than walking into a bank and asking a bank employee , "Is there is any way you can get all the money out of the vault for me?". Then when caught, arguing they meant for the employee to legally get the money out of the vault for them. There is no legal way to get possession of other peoples money from a bank or other peoples sealed court records.

The one thing that keeps running through my mind.

The media has rights. But they are not above the law... or are they?