"Was this an honest mistake?"

Yes, it was. As the original article points out, the contemporary response by Roberts to Schumer's question was "a faint echo" of the unsigned 30 page memo. In other words, while Roberts today is not "caustic" as the original memo was - for which Fein claims authorship - he appears to be in general agreement with it. Furthermore, in his recent reply to Schumer's questions, according to the original article, Roberts wrote that "questions about the scope of Sullivan remain."

The original article also made the point that whatever Roberts' personal views on Sullivan, when a case came up that was germane, he "'applied Sullivan generously'" which an expert stated was "'evidence of a fidelity to stare decisis.'"

How was the mistake made? Apparently, as the correction article implies, the 30 page unsigned memo was part of a large number of papers from Roberts' files under Reagan that were made available.

Also among those papers was a second, short memo from 1985 that Roberts did indeed sign that was critical of Sullivan, but not as "caustic" which suggested a compromise for scaling back press protection by limiting the size of libel awards.

Seeing as how both memos were critical of Sullivan, one was signed, and both were in Roberts' files, the reporter erroneously attributed the unsigned memo to Roberts.

The corrections makes the point that Roberts is, in fact, no great fan of Sullivan, but he is not a furious critic of it either. Furthermore, the first article makes clear Roberts respects precedent whatever his personal opinions.

It was a careless mistake, plain and simple. It shouldn't have happened, plain and simple. But it would be a stretch to call it a malicious mistake.

This is coming from someone who has little good to say about the NY Times coverage of politics - they have proven themselves over and over lapdogs of the Bush administration - or of Judge Roberts himself - a man that used to be called "ultra-conservative" before the Birch Society platform was adopted wholesale by the Republican party.

That said, Roberts came across in the first article, and especially in light of the correction in the second, as a very decent and honest jurist.

Whether he actually is in his new job, only time will tell.