• He was right to be annoyed that she backed out so late.



• She was right that since nothing was on paper, there was nothing legally binding her to take the job.



• She was wrong to go against her word about what she would do -- legally binding or not, people rely on you doing what you say you're going to do.



• He was right that pissing off someone in a small legal community seems unwise if you plan to practice there.



• She was dumb to write the bla bla bla e-mail. She could have stopped where she was and been (just) within the bounds of propriety.



• He was wrong to share that private e-mail exchange with someone else, which allowed it to get out to the public. At the very least, he should have stripped out her name, and presented it as an interesting life episode. That he didn't leaves the strong implication that he was getting it around in order to punish her in some way by spreading word of the exchange within the legal community. He could still have done that by describing the incident in his own words, explicitly naming her if he was of a mind to get back at her (within his prerogative, if not particularly nice), but using her e-mails without her permission invades her privacy.



• I note that she's taken the opportunity of her 15 minutes of fame to have a glamour photo taken for publicity purposes -- a sign of the times.

There, aren't you glad I didn't leave you in the dark?