Advice

[defamationguy2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Doesn't matter

There are a lot of very knowledgable people in this forum which makes me hesitant to write this thread. I had an incident a few years back where I was being badly defamed and my reputation was hurt with income lost. I got a lawyer and spent a lot of money all to find out a lawsuit is not going to happen. I discovered that a slander/libel lawsuit is very difficult to win and in many ways impractical because it will spread the rumor even more.

If you want to get it stopped, forget about trying to get money out of the situation. Forget about a lawsuit.

Here are a couple of ideas that can get it stopped without a lawsuit.

1. Hire a private detective to discover the source of the rumors and those who are parties to it. The PI can go to people under the ruse of conducting a background check on you for his client (whose name he never reveals).

2. Have an attorney send a cease and desist letter to those who have been involved in the slander. This invarable puts a stop to it quickly.

This will cost you a few thousand dollars in fees as it did me. Had I decided to go forward with a lawsuit, the cost would have been at least $50,000 with no guarantee of an outcome (although my case was fairly solid).

I hope I am not stepping on any toes here to offer this. I read several posts, and just thought this might be helpful. Please listen to the senior members here who seem to repeatedly state that a slander lawsuit is very difficult and usually not the answer. They are right and are smart people.

 

[cbg]

I don't think you can say conclusively that a C&D letter will "invariably" stop things. Sometimes it just pokes the bear and makes them more determined. I'm glad it worked for you but it's not a guarantee.

 

[tranquility]

Actually, the state DOES matter. Give facts if you want good good information.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Doesn't matter

There are a lot of very knowledgable people in this forum which makes me hesitant to write this thread. I had an incident a few years back where I was being badly defamed and my reputation was hurt with income lost. I got a lawyer and spent a lot of money all to find out a lawsuit is not going to happen. I discovered that a slander/libel lawsuit is very difficult to win and in many ways impractical because it will spread the rumor even more.

If you want to get it stopped, forget about trying to get money out of the situation. Forget about a lawsuit.

Here are a couple of ideas that can get it stopped without a lawsuit.

1. Hire a private detective to discover the source of the rumors and those who are parties to it. The PI can go to people under the ruse of conducting a background check on you for his client (whose name he never reveals).

2. Have an attorney send a cease and desist letter to those who have been involved in the slander. This invarable puts a stop to it quickly.

This will cost you a few thousand dollars in fees as it did me. Had I decided to go forward with a lawsuit, the cost would have been at least $50,000 with no guarantee of an outcome (although my case was fairly solid).

I hope I am not stepping on any toes here to offer this. I read several posts, and just thought this might be helpful. Please listen to the senior members here who seem to repeatedly state that a slander lawsuit is very difficult and usually not the answer. They are right and are smart people.

I do not think it is necessarily good advice to tell people to forget about a lawsuit. Every situation will be different and, in law especially, facts matter. Sometimes the facts will indicate that a lawsuit is the best action to take. If the facts support a slander or libel suit, the suit will be no harder to win than any other suit with merit.

A cease and desist letter can often be a good first step to take in any legal action. The most effective cease and desist letters will come from an attorney. The recipient of the cease and desist letter then knows that an attorney has been contacted and there is a greater chance that a suit will be filed.

But cease and desist letters often do not work or do not work as intended (as cbg has indicated). There is no force of law behind a cease and desist letter, for one thing. It is just a letter. Many who receive a C&D will choose to ignore it. Sometimes a cease and desist letter works to inflame the recipient into taking further action against the sender.

I would say, in other words, that the "invariably puts a stop to it quickly" is an overly optimistic and not quite accurate statement.

And private investigators can be useful for some things and of no use for others. It will again depend on the facts. Many people, for example, do not need to discover the source of the defamation because they know their defamer. A background check is not necessary.

There is never a guarantee that you will win any lawsuit. They are always a gamble. A defamation lawsuit is no different. The only guarantee with any lawsuit is that money and time and effort will be spent, and generally the money that is spent will be far greater than anticipated.

You are right, however, that defamation lawsuits tend to be costlier than most. This is because reputations are valuable. The damages awarded in a successful suit tend to be high, to compensate for injury that is often permanent. If a reputation is severely injured and all of the facts support a suit, a defamation lawsuit can be worth pursuing.

But, with all of that said, if you want to resolve a dispute and there is any way to resolve the dispute outside of a courtroom, without attorneys or judges or juries getting involved, that should be the goal. Sometimes that is a realistic goal, other times it isn't.


edit to add: I agree with tranquility. Laws vary from state to state. Defamation laws vary in significant ways from state to state. This is why the state name is requested of all posters.

 

[swalsh411]

Considering no State was provided, and the alleged defamation was "several years back" it's also possible the SoL has passed.

 

[quincy]

Considering no State was provided, and the alleged defamation was "several years back" it's also possible the SoL has passed.

I believe that defamationguy2 was only offering general advice with his post and not looking for advice himself. It appears from what he wrote that his situation has already been resolved and it was resolved without a lawsuit.

His advice to seek the help of a private investigator and to send a cease and desist letter, instead of pursuing a defamation action against the defamer, can work under some circumstances for some people but will not work for everyone. Facts matter.

As to the statute of limitations for filing a defamation claim, the SOL is one year in many states, two years in most states, and three years in a handful of states.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Without naming it directly, I believe the OP was referring to the "Streisand Effect".

For the uninitiated: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-what-streisand-effect

 

[quincy]

Without naming it directly, I believe the OP was referring to the "Streisand Effect".

For the uninitiated: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-what-streisand-effect

The Streisand effect is a common fear with defamation claims but I am not sure how realistic a fear it is.

Most defamation suits will not attract attention enough to cause the plaintiff in a suit greater reputational harm. Court records are publicly accessible (for the most part) but most suits settle with very little fanfare and fuss. The media will generally not be interested in publicizing anything but the most interesting of cases involving the most interesting of people and these type of cases are few and far between. Without media attention, most defamation claims come and go without much notice.

In addition, when it is the media that is being sued for defamation, a plaintiff generally is aware that there will be coverage and the press attention is often desired. Public attention to a claim can help to clear a reputation by publicizing the fact that communications made were false - if, in fact, the communications were false. . . . and hopefully an attorney has determined in advance that the legal action has merit and there is a good chance the suit will be a successful one for the plaintiff (it totally sucks for the plaintiff otherwise).


(as an aside, I had absolutely no interest in viewing Streisand's property back then - or now - but I admit that I looked at the numerous photos published of her home and grounds after she sued over their publication)

 

[defamationguy2]

My responses

Thanks everyone for the replies. So much to say...

I was not asking for information or help, but giving advice from my own experience and knowledge of the subject that came from educating myself about it through the process, but admittedly as a "lay" person without formal study. This matter for me has been resolved. Since I was offering general advice, in my case, the state I'm in or that others are in, did not matter. But, yes, the state you are in matters a great deal when people here are asking for help.

As for the C/D letter, cbg, you are right. It won't stop the stupid people in the world. For the most part, getting that from an attorney seems to let them know that you're serious about the matter, and smart people will usually think differently about continuing their behavior.

The Streisand effect - I didn't know it had a name, but, yes, that is exactly what I mean. In my case, the allegations would have made the regional news if not the national news, not because of the rumors against me, but because of the reason those rumors began (the attempted coverup). (Remember the Penn State/Paterno story? Well, mine is similar. I was a witness to a crime and "controlled" when I wouldn't play ball). It also depends on what the rumor is as to how much more widespread a lawsuit will spread it.

In libel cases, I believe that facts are more clear and the source is pretty apparent. In slander cases, it is more difficult to prove who said what to whom and where it originated. In slander, a private investigator is more helpful for this.

I probably wasn't clear about the background check. My attorney had the private investigator speak to people, telling them that he was conducting a background check on *me*. It was a way of getting them to talk and state the rumor if they were going to do so, and tell from where they heard it. Some were suspicious of who hired the PI, thinking that it was connected to a possible lawsuit. They would not talk with the PI, but they also were intimidated enough to stop talking about me. So it worked to either silence people who were spreading the false rumor, or to give me information about who was saying what.

My own opinion remains that in most situations, particularly slander, defamation lawsuits are difficult to win and a high stakes gamble. It is also the opinion of some lawyer friends of mine. This frustrates many people, which is why I offered some alternative advice for what it's worth. And of course, it depends on the individual situation.

Thanks everyone for all you do. Keep up the great work!!

 

[quincy]

. . . . .And of course, it depends on the individual situation.

Thanks everyone for all you do. Keep up the great work!!

I agree with you that it does depend on the individual situation. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

This is why the best general advice to offer someone is for them to have all of the specific facts of their individual situation personally reviewed by an attorney in their area.

Thanks for recognizing the work the volunteers on this site do, defamationguy2.