Comments on: Phila. judge: no right to anonymous online disparagement

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:40:31 +0000

This is the same venue where a lawyer sued the ABA newspaper for describing him as a “fixer,” and won a settlement after an initial ABA court motion was denied.

I spoke to the plaintiff lawyer, and asked about the damage. Everyone thought him a great lawyer around Philly. After all, he had won a defamation suit for $millions against a newspaper a few years before. The newspaper was sold to a chain shortly after that ruinous verdict. What person with right mind would publically criticize this person?

She had to dig up a West Virginia judge who would not want to be seen with him after that label in order to file the case. I thought the word “fixer” was a compliment for a lawyer. The judge decided that was a jury question. The ABA settled instead of risking the fate of the newspaper. This lawyer then called the settlement generous.

In defense of Philly lawyers, one successfully defended John Peter Zenger against a defamation of the Crown charge, by using the “truth as a defense.” The jury disobeyed the clear instruction of the judges to return a not guilty verdict after Andrew Hamilton was through with them. He admitted all charges. But went for a policy argument of the trial’s setting the fate of Liberty, itself.

The adversary in that case was the first to use the derisive “Philadelphia lawyer.”

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:54:42 +0000

Of course, the cost having six everyday people sort it out is a hundred thousand dollars or more that won’t be recoverable. Plus, without expensive discovery, there’s a risk that a court will find it libel per se and grant summary judgment for the plaintiff. Plus, it’s quite likely that the plaintiffs sued in a jurisdiction where the jury won’t consist of six everyday people, but six people handpicked to be favorable to the plaintiffs.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:17:23 +0000

My first thought as defense attorney for the alleged defamers would be, “Let’s take it to the jury.” Then, 6 everyday folks will sort it out. See? Not everything about our legal system is so bad.

By: Ann Obstetrician

Ann Obstetrician — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:01:56 +0000

I think that the law firm of Klehr Harrison upholds the fine reputation of the Pennsylvania bar, and that none of its lawyers are ‘thieves,’ have committed ‘fraud’ or should be accused of ‘lying’ to a judge.

Is that OK?

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:49:20 +0000

What damages did these lawyers suffer? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l032.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel Then, are not these lawyers people who inserted themselves in a public controversy? My favorite part is that the dead cannot be libeled. However, those who libel the dead may liable for legal animadversion.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:57:01 +0000

“Am I the only one with an itch to post something anonymous and defamatory about Pennsylvania judges and lawyers?”

NO.

One problem in a case like this is that the common usage of “fraud” does not require someone to be CONVICTED of fraud – ditto with “thief”. People use those terms regularly for people operating at the moral margins (or well past them) who may be on quite firm LEGAL ground.

Of course, most lawyers can’t see that.

By: nevins

nevins — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:35:36 +0000

Do these lawyers really want to be so pissy about this. In the great cacophony of so many web based postings probably very few people ever read these postings. If they were read then few would give much creedence to unsubstantiated anonymous postings.

They probably intend to harras the poster, cost him some money in a defence then drop the complaint. They would never take it to court because of the possibility that the allegations of fraud, theft and purjery just might be considered a valid defence for the poster.

By: Kent

Kent — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:32:00 +0000

Well, of course you shouldn’t get away with posting something defamatory merely because you do it anonymously and online.

The problem is in supposing that the remarks were defamatory.

By: Nicole Black

Nicole Black — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:24:33 +0000

What an interesting development. It makes me want to review each and every post on my blog and every comment that I’ve ever made on line with a fine tooth comb, however.

On second thought, maybe I’ll just shut down my blog and run for the hills!

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:22:49 +0000

Am I the only one with an itch to post something anonymous and defamatory about Pennsylvania judges and lawyers?