Watch what you say about lawyers (and everyone else), cont’d: a “Philadelphia judge has ruled that a valid defamation claim trumps any right to speak anonymously on the Internet….Common Pleas Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr. ordered the operator of two now-defunct Web sites to turn over the identities of the anonymous authors of comments on the sites that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm….In the suit, the Klehr Harrison firm complains that its reputation was severely disparaged by comments on the two sites that falsely accused its lawyers of being ‘thieves,’ committing ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ to a judge.” Although courts in some other states have protected anonymous online commenters from demands that their identity be disclosed, Sheppard said Pennsylvania law was not obliged to follow that path. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Law Firm’s Defamation Claim Found to Trump Critics’ Internet Anonymity”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jan. 23). For more on the legal hazards of criticizing Pennsylvania lawyers and judges, see Nov. 30, 2003, Mar. 16, 2004, and Oct. 24-25, 2001.
Comments are open (be very careful, please).
11 Comments
Ok then,
In my opinion
The lawyers who filed this case are idiots, and may have committed fraud, theft and purjury. Also, the moon may be made of cheese, I’ve never been there.
Maybe all comments should be automatically prefaced with a “Commentors opinion is:”
Am I the only one with an itch to post something anonymous and defamatory about Pennsylvania judges and lawyers?
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!
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”