More on NYT’s Dismal Editorial Standards and Bruce Fein’s Falsehoods
As I noted, in an apparent effort to bolster Bruce Fein’s credibility as it published his falsehoods, the New York Times appended to Fein’s letter the irrelevant fact of Fein’s service in the Reagan administration three decades ago. Per Aaron Worthing at Patterico’s Pontifications—and more relevant to the question of Fein’s current standing to opine on matters of ethics—the Times might instead have noted that Fein is facing a pending lawsuit from a former client (or alleged client) for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of $1.55 million and that Fein is (or recently was?) affiliated with a small law firm whose lead partner has been suspended from the practice of law in three jurisdictions.
I of course don’t seriously mean that the Times should have noted these matters. Further, treating Fein more fairly than he has treated others, I emphasize that, so far as I know, Fein may be entirely blameless in these matters.