A Chicago lawyer reportedly Moria Bernstein sued attorney rating service AVVO for allegedly violating Illinois state law and for allegedly usurping her rights to self-publicity.
Reportedly, the lawsuit also claims that by certain techniques, AVVO is trying to coerce Ms. Bernstein into purchasing marketing services from AVVO.
Yet, all information that AVVO provides and that aggravated Ms. Bernstein appears to be a matter of public record.
At the same time, a Florida appeals court affirmed a $350,000 award against consumers of legal services for publishing a critical online review against their attorney.
The reviews were posted on Yelp and on the same AVVO.
The divorcing couple accused the wife's attorney of "dramatically inflating fees", lied about her fees and falsified a contract.
Those were factual assertions that the court took an issue with.
Legal experts indicated that Florida has a lower (than in other states) burden of proof in defamation cases, so this case may not be easily transferrable to other states where, I am sure, former clients would also like to criticize their attorneys for their performance - sometimes, in good faith, sometimes, in order not to pay their legal fees.
And - lo and behold - a judge in a bench (non-jury) trial awarded $350,000 in PUNITIVE damages alone!
The Florida appellate court also made a distinction between non-media defendants (in that case) and media defendants who are entitled to higher protections.
Had the defendants passed the review through a media source, keeping themselves as a confidential source of a journalist, the result could have been different.
Yet, I doubt that any media source would entertain publishing what amounts to private fee disputes with an attorney.
Once again - WHY would anybody waive their right to a jury trial in favor of a trial by a judge?
No comments:
Post a Comment