Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘newspapers’

Los Angeles: Where Even the Prosecutors Are in Show Biz

In the sort of cases covered by this site, public relations overshadow substance all too often.  For a glimpse of how even public servants — in this case the prosecutors of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office — are keeping a constant eye on the P.R. possibilities of their cases, consider this report from former Los Angeles Times reporter-turned-blogger, Kevin Roderick (LA Observed, "Rocky’s office defines what makes news," Dec. 22):

A recent email reminded all the lawyers in City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo’s criminal branch never to talk to reporters without clearance — and how they should recognize a newsworthy legal case.  Public safety?  Important public issue at stake?  Nah, this is L.A.

Number one is any case involving a celebrity — ‘no matter how minor’ — followed closely by a politician.  Death, mutilation, child molestation or animal cruelty are also sure bets.

Terrorism shows up as the tenth item on the list, slightly behind cases representing a "major personal accomplishment for the prosecutor" and not far ahead of cases involving "a truly weird fact pattern."

Roderick reproduces the entire long e-mail — repetitiously entitled "Improving Communications with the Communications Department" — which prescribes an elaborate protocol for keeping "’primary points of contact"’ within the Communications Department" [formerly the "Press Office"] informed as cases proceed, and concludes with a reminder that it pays to plan ahead, even before bringing charges:

[I]f you have a case that is very likely to attract media attention, such
as a celebrity justice case, you may want to obtain guidance from the
Communications Department in advance of the filing, arraignment, trial,
etc. regarding how to deal with expected press inquiries.

What a wonderful phrase: "Celebrity justice."  Welcome to L.A.

Filed under: , , ,

Newspaper owner: remove that window sign or else

Highlights Hair Salon owner Eric Zahm sympathized with workers seeking to form a union at the Santa Barbara News-Press, so he put a sign in his window reading “McCaw Obey the Law”, referring to the paper’s owner, Wendy McCaw. Next thing you know, McCaw’s lawyer, Barry Cappello, fired off a letter to Zahm threatening “appropriate action” if the sign were not taken down, on the grounds that the sign’s message exposed his client to “hatred, contempt and ridicule.” Zahm caved in for fear of a suit and took down the sign. So much for the notion that all newspaper magnates are devotees of freedom of speech (Matt Cota, “Santa Barbara News-Press Owner Threatens Hair Stylist Over Sign”, KSBY, Dec. 15).

More: In the comments, reader “imafish” alerts us to another lawsuit in which Ampersand Publishing LLC, which publishes the News-Press, has sued reporter Susan Paterno, claiming that an article she wrote about the newspaper in the American Journalism Review was a “biased, false and misleading diatribe”; charging her with libel and product disparagement, it asks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. (Greg Risling, “Publisher Sues Reporter Over Story”, AP/Newsday, Dec. 19).

Filed under: , ,

Annals of Pennsylvania libel law

As we have had occasion to note in the past, the home of Ben Franklin has somehow wound up as a place where newspapers are unusually vulnerable to intimidation by the threat of lawsuit (see Mar. 16, 2004, Nov. 21, 2006, etc.). Paul Carpenter, the excellent columnist with the Allentown Morning Call, sheds a bit of light on a case with which he was personally involved, Bufalino v. Associated Press (692 F.2d 266 (2d Cir.1982)). (“Small newspaper leads the way against bullies”, Nov. 26).

Filed under: , ,

When a judge sues for defamation, cont’d

Reacting to the recent case in which a jury awarded Illinois chief justice Robert Thomas $7 million against a suburban newspaper, the Kane County Chronicle (Jun. 22, Jul. 19, Nov. 3, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 19). the New York Times recalls a 1983 case in which “a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania sued The Philadelphia Inquirer for defamation. The case was finally dismissed this summer — a full 23 years after it began. … [Reporter Daniel R.] Biddle, who is now an editor at The Inquirer, said he had learned through lawyers that some of the biggest law firms in Philadelphia declined to represent the paper, in part ‘because they were afraid’ that fighting a Supreme Court justice might jeopardize their other clients.” (Katharine Q. Seelye, “Clash of a Judge and a Small Paper Underlines the Tangled History of Defamation”, New York Times, Nov. 20). More: Mar. 16, 2004. The Times piece also discusses a lawsuit’s silencing of the Alton Telegraph, which once was an outspoken voice in Madison County, Illinois; Ted covered that episode on Point of Law Dec. 28, 2004.

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Update: appeals court tosses $18M Gannett verdict

Following urgings by prominent attorney and frequent Overlawyered mentionee Willie Gary, a jury in Pensacola, Fla. had awarded the sum to a road builder who said he was defamed by an investigative-journalism piece in the newspaper chain’s Pensacola News-Journal (Mar. 30-31, 2001; Dec. 23, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). The Florida appeals court “ruled that Joe Anderson’s case should have been dismissed because he mischaracterized his lawsuit as a ‘false-light claim’ to get around a two-year statute of limitations that applies in libel cases. The court said that since its decision was based on the statute-of-limitations issue, it did not rule on several other arguments for reversal raised by the newspaper.” (Ginny Graybiel, “News Journal suit reversed”, Oct. 21).

Filed under: , , , , ,

Very big breaking news: UK libel laws narrowed

One of the few places where the UK is more litigious than the United States is in its infamously broad libel laws, which put the burden of the proof on the defendant to prove the truth of a statement, resulting in multiple instances of “libel tourism,” which we’ve noted previously: e.g., Aug. 1, Jan. 6, 2004, and, most notably, by Saudi businessmen hoping to preclude investigations into their relationship with terrorists, Oct. 26, 2003. (In contrast, in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that, to avoid “chilling effects” on First Amendment speech rights, a public-figure plaintiff must prove an intentional or reckless falsehood.) Britain’s top court sided with the Wall Street Journal Europe and created a legal defense whereby a speaker who “behave[s] fairly and responsibly” in reporting on a matter of public importance will not be liable for defamatory statements. (Aaron O. Patrick, “U.K. Court Backs WSJE in Libel Ruling”, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 11; Lattman). This moves the UK much closer to the US in its libel law.

I am not the first to note that, while academics and courts of all stripes recognize the potential chilling effects of litigation on First Amendment rights, courts have been reluctant to acknowledge the chilling effects of litigation on other rights and economically productive activity.

Filed under: , , ,

“We’re going to sue everyone from A to Z”

It was easy to sympathize with Richard Jewell, victim a decade ago of FBI bungling which led to his being falsely suspected in the Atlanta Olympics bombing. It’s not so easy to sympathize with his legal posture since then, which would be easily mistaken for an effort to vacuum the pockets of every media organization within reach. (Mark Fitzgerald, “Sob On Someone Else’s Shoulder, Richard Jewell”, Editor and Publisher, Jul. 25).

Filed under: , , , , ,

Update: damages in Ill. justice’s libel suit

So how exactly do you build a case for high damages when the alleged defamation (see Jun. 22) hasn’t dislodged you from the bench and it will be a good long while before your term expires? Well, your lawyer can talk about how you were thinking of stepping down to become a highly paid rainmaker at a Chicago law firm, and so maybe the defendant newspaper should have to compensate you for what your hired economist says is the value of that. Besides, you were thinking of securing an appointment as a federal judge. And what if the Illinois voters decide to throw you out down the road — isn’t the lost salary from that something the defendant should have to pay you for, too? (Eric Herman, “Justice’s libel suit figures his losses”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jun. 10)(via Lattman).

Filed under: , , , , ,

Lawsuits it would be prudent not to become involved in

An example: one would not wish to be sued for defamation by the chief justice of one’s own state, as is happening at the moment to the Kane County Chronicle, which is facing a lawsuit from Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas over a series of critical columns in the suburban paper. Noway, nohow would one wish one’s name to turn up as the defendant in such an action (Christi Parsons, “Chief justice doesn’t just get mad, he sues”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 18).

Filed under: , , , ,