A jury awarded a University of Michigan student $4.5 million based on the actions of a former Michigan assistant attorney general who wrote negatively about the student on his personal blog.
You know the old saying, an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, the foolish former assistant attorney general represented himself and stubbornly went down with his own ship. Relying entirely on a First Amendment defense, he refused to accept a settlement offer to apologize and retract his comments that the student used alcohol to entire minors to have sex with him.
You know the old saying, an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, the foolish former assistant attorney general represented himself and stubbornly went down with his own ship. Relying entirely on a First Amendment defense, he refused to accept a settlement offer to apologize and retract his comments that the student used alcohol to entire minors to have sex with him.
Using the public figure, public controversy standard announced by the Supreme Court in NY Times v. Sullivan, the offensive blogger claimed his comments were fair game.
Unfortunately the attorney failed to account for the role of juries in his trial. Complaining that "the jury award was 'grossly excessive' for what was 'clearly protected speech ... and activity. This should have been thrown out,' he said, adding that he plans to appeal. 'Juries give short shrift to First Amendment rights.'
Juries are the finders of fact and decide what kinds of damages are appropriate. Despite his claims to be unable to pay the hefty sum, he should have received some tough advice and retracted his statements unless he had proof or some basis to argue good faith. With a fool for an attorney, he had no such counsel. He should mention that in his appeal.
Read more here.
Unfortunately the attorney failed to account for the role of juries in his trial. Complaining that "the jury award was 'grossly excessive' for what was 'clearly protected speech ... and activity. This should have been thrown out,' he said, adding that he plans to appeal. 'Juries give short shrift to First Amendment rights.'
Juries are the finders of fact and decide what kinds of damages are appropriate. Despite his claims to be unable to pay the hefty sum, he should have received some tough advice and retracted his statements unless he had proof or some basis to argue good faith. With a fool for an attorney, he had no such counsel. He should mention that in his appeal.
Read more here.
RSS Feed