A whole different Outlook: When what you sent becomes journalistic kismet

Here's a story that can't help but raise an ethical question or two. Besides being reported in "The New York Times," the story has gotten considerable attention from several other outlets, including NPR's "On the Media" and the FishbowlNY blog on "Media Bistro." Here is the background, courtesy of Fishbowl:

For months, Eli Lilly & Co. had been in confidential talks with the government to arrange a settlement that would involve the firm possibly paying more than $1 billion to federal and state governments. The federal government had been investigating the drug firm's marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa; since at least 2003, there have been claims over improper and aggressive (read: ethically dubious) marketing of the drug by Lilly. The side effect? Lilly has paid $1.2 billion to settle 30,000 lawsuits from patients who claim Zyprexa caused them to suffer diabetes.

Alright, now for those of you familiar with Outlook e-mail, you know that the form has a supposedly "helpful" feature which allows you to simply type in only a few letters of a given address and the program will supply the rest of the address, suggesting a recent recipient it thinks you might want to message again.

Cool, right? Possibly not--especially if you're a lawyer trying to spend the specifics of a prescription drug settlement to a client whose last name is dangerously close to that of a "New York Times" reporter.

Fishbowl recounts:

An unnamed Pepper Hamilton lawyer accidentally e-mailed Times reporter Berenson confidential information on the talks. The lawyer had an Outlook snafu when trying to e-mail Sidley Austin co-counsel Bradford Berenson... Alex Berenson logged on to find an internal "very comprehensive document" about the negotiations, the consultant said, and on January 30, Berenson's article, "Lilly in Settlement Talks With U.S." appeared on the Times' Web site. (view the article).

It could be argued that, since the e-mail was not intended for the reporter, he should not have read--let alone published--the findings of his inbox. On the other hand, that's exactly where the e-mail landed. Could Alex Berenson help it that he just happened to have the same last name as the co-counsel member? Furthermore, as a journalist, a watchdog for justice, did he have a duty to report the information to the public? Did Alex Berenson's moral logic pale in comparison to the carelessness of the lawyer who sent the message?

I guess the lesson is learned, folks--watch your outgoing messages, especially if you're in the legal, and even more so if a "New York Times" reporter is one of your recent contacts.