But all of this relies on trust. Do I trust a reporter to not reveal me as a source if a she’s threatened with jail time? What if she’s actually sent to jail? How much that’s a worry depends on the information, but it’s also why we don’t let folks just declare things off the record without a convo.

It’s a fair point. (A whistleblower calling the paper is different than the scenario you suggested. It’s just newsier if a lawyer, in a high profile case, is trying to put facts on the record without attribution.)

But the reality is that all this is a matter of conventions, not law. There are no rules carved in stone, and the only punishment for breaking them is that the next person won’t talk to you. So was this one worth it? Hey, you place your bets and you take your chances…

But I think journalists report on such negotiations all the time, no? “John Doe declined comment.” I myself have used “John Doe did not return five phone calls over three days.” (Liked that one.) If a lawyer in a high-profile case calls a journalist as you describe? The call itself is news.

I’ll defend Lieber a little: 1. When I was reporting, I gave more grace to civilians than pros when it came to knowing the rules of attribution. A DOE spox … should know the rules. 2. The content was public record, so it was all a little silly, and nothing confidential was divulged.