Lawyer Sues Opposing Lawyer For Defamation
from the careful-what-you-say dept
You don’t see this one every day. A lawyer is suing the opposing lawyer in a high profile controversial case about a teenaged runaway, claiming that the opposing lawyer defamed him, by saying in a TV interview that he was “unqualified” and “that he has terrorist ties.” While the latter clearly could be defamatory (the former might be… but seems more like a statement of opinion, not fact), it does make you wonder if such a lawsuit really is effective in preventing “damage to his reputation.” I would think that most people would recognize the statements in context, rather than automatically assuming they were true.
Filed Under: defamation, lawyers
Comments on “Lawyer Sues Opposing Lawyer For Defamation”
A lawyer’s character is what he trades on. Shutting OC up through a lawsuit may be appropriate.
Huh, and here I always thought it was their lack of character that made them the big bucks.
Lawyers have character?
a lawyer has no character
…we could get lawyers to eat other lawyers then our problems would diminish exponentially at mealtimes!
Re: If only...
Problem is that they reproduce exponentially, because they are, in reality, viruses.
This may surprise you, but think about it:
Lawyers seek a host and infect him, drain him of resources (usually crippling him or killing him in the process) and, in the end, just leave that host and seek a new one. They also serve no useful purpose, other than reproducing themselves (and crippling/killing hosts).
They have a complex and interesting outer shell, but really not much inside once you take a good look. Also notice that, like viruses, they also don’t attack their own kind (although some weird mutations sometimes happen that may cause that).
They also have interesting ways of spreading themselves around. Some viruses are airborne, seeking new hosts through a process called “word-of-mouth”, where previous hosts help them spread to new hosts simply by saying good things about them. Others remain dormant until someone enters in contact with them. Physical contact is often not necessary. A phone call could be sufficient.
The only way to really kill the viruses is to kill all potential hosts, or hope someone invents a cure, that generally works by blocking the reproduction mechanism of the viruses. But these so called “cures” have proven ineffective, as the ever growing population of lawyers attests.
shakespeare was right.
>claiming that the opposing lawyer defamed him, by saying in a TV interview that he was “unqualified” and “that he has terrorist ties.”
Well if he keeps wearing the Osama Bin Ladden line of neck wear he gets what he deserves.
First, kill all lawyers.
where's Average Joe ??
Since you’re studying to be a lawyer, what do you think of this particular story, dear Average Joe ???
What do you call a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the English Channel?
A good beginning! :p
What do you call a hundred politicians at the bottom of the English Channel?
A good beginning! :p
For those interested in Internet defamation – i have just set up a blog. http://www.defamous.com
not sure about this, “professional” peoples “opinions” carry far more weight and clout than an average Joe saying it, he may have some claim, maybe enough to win, not sure, but maybe enough to make the other guy make a public retraction
What terrorist ties look like [online shop]
"I would think that most people would recognize the statements in context, rather than automatically assuming they were true."
Yes, one logical person might think that, however the vast majority of people have NO common sense or logic and their belief process starts before their thinking process so they’re already preconditioned to accept what they hear/read as fact. Humanity fail.