Overbilling

[quincy]

First, blueturnaround, defamation is the communication of FALSE reputationally injurious statements. If what is communicated is TRUE, it would not be defamation.

It would be up to you, however, as a defendant in any defamation suit, to prove the truth of what you wrote as your defense to the claim. Without proof of the truth of the statements made, and with the statements judged by the court to be defamatory per se, damages can be awarded without any proof by the plaintiff of reputational injury or economic loss. Reputational harm is presumed. It is up to a jury to determine how much should be awarded to compensate for this injury.

Truth is also a defense to disparagement of a business, or the goods and services of the business. Disparagement is the making of false or misleading representations of fact that intends harm. See Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection law at 73 P.S. §201-2.

What you potentially face with your statements are not only the defamation of the attorney - injuring the reputation of the attorney through the publication of false statements that expose him to "ridicule, hatred, contempt" - but also commercial disparagement - false negative comments with respect to a business. The problem with your review is that you went beyond your own personal experience with the attorney to draw broad conclusions and imply facts about the attorney and his practice as a whole. There is no way you can know if he handles all cases the way you believe he has handled yours (and, in fact, based on the other reviews this attorney received on the attorney review site, your case may, indeed, be an anomoly).

Below are some cases you can review to see how Pennsylvania has handled the defamation of an attorney and the disparagement of a commercial enterprise.

Phillips v Selig, 2001 WL 18075951, Pa.Com.Pl. (2001), is a defamation suit that centered on charges that an attorney for the Major League Umpires' Association was unethical, incompetent and dishonest in his dealings.

In Daugherty v Boyertown Times, 377 Pa Super 462, 547 A.2d 778 (1988), the disparagement of a business case arose from comments made that the company charged excessive fees, which imputed both unethical conduct on the part of the business, but also disparaged an individual in this business.

In addition, there is another case that demonstrates the application of commercial disparagement to both a business reputation and an individual in that business. See Pro Golf Manufacturing, Inc v Tribune Review Newspaper Co, 809 A.2d 243 Pa (2002).

I think it was a mistake for you to write the review while the action against the attorney was pending (if appropriate to write such a review at all). If the court does not interpret the contract you signed in the way you are hoping it will, and even if the court agrees with you on the language of the contract, you could find yourself on the losing end of one or more civil actions being filed against you.

Perhaps it is time for you to seek the advice of another attorney in your area? I believe it would be wise and I recommend such a consultation.

As a note: I have no problem at all "hanging" attorneys who have violated professional rules, ethic codes or laws.

 

[blueturnaround]

Ok thanks. I appreciate the gloom & doom perspective that you give. The info you gave makes me feel that I don't have anything to worry about.

Plus, I offered him a chance to tell me what was untrue so that I could retract, he didn't take it.

I don't understand why you think the outcome of the case has anything to do with this. I didn't say he did X, Y, & Z....I said, I filed a complaint alleging X, Y, & Z. Which is true. I also provided a source where the suit could be followed up on.

I do really think your protecting the fraternity, but hey, that's life.

 

[quincy]

No "fraternity" protecting here, blueturnaround. There are crappy attorneys and these crappy attorneys can often be held accountable for their crappiness if they have violated professional rules, codes of ethics, or if they have broken any laws. And I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

But I am not sure, from all that you have posted here, that you will be able to show your particular crappy attorney violated any rules, codes or laws.

I am presenting to you in these posts the worst case scenarios. It is better for you to be prepared for the worst instead of having me say you have nothing to worry about - especially when I think you may, indeed, have something to worry about.

Defamation suits are extremely expensive to pursue and threats to sue are tossed about quite frequently with no lawsuit resulting from the threat. Often a threat to sue can be used effectively to resolve a problem - for example, having a defamatory review deleted and a retraction posted before any reputational harm results.

There are certainly times when a threat to sue for defamation is used strictly to intimidate someone into silence. Most individuals and companies do not like to be negatively reviewed and they will want all negative reviews deleted, this even if the reviews clearly avoid all defamation issues and are clearly First Amendment protected comments or criticisms. That a lawsuit actually materializes from such a threat would be unlikely - but, again, the threat alone can eliminate the negative review without a lawsuit.

I think that you have angered this attorney. You have fought for the return of retainer amounts after signing an agreement that states the retainer fee is automatically "earned" upon the signing of the agreement, and you have publicly accused this attorney of overbilling you and double-billing you, and you have accused this attorney of being incompetent and unskilled and dishonest.

Yes, if I were you I would worry. I would also seek the advice of an attorney in your area to review all of the facts to see if any of this worry can be alleviated.

I certainly hope for your sake that I am being overly pessimistic. It is entirely possible that I am. But I think it would be a mistake for you to feel overly optimistic, not given the facts as you have presented them here.

Sorry.

Again, blueturnaround, seek out the help of an attorney in your area. This will give you a better idea of where you stand legally, both with your action to have the retainer amounts refunded and with a defamation suit over your attorney-review, should the attorney decide to sue.

 

[blueturnaround]

I appreciate the interpretation. However, I think you take some assumptions that aren't quite right. The "earned" language is not as clear as you say, its very ambiguous as we've disagreed on earlier. In fact, the word "retainer" never appears in the agreement, and neither does non-refundable....but anyway, I guess we'll see how the judge, appeals panel, then jury sees it. Nothing lost here but time if I'm wrong.

As for the threats...I don't accuse him of anything. I say that I filed a complaint and in that complaint is X, Y, & Z. X, Y, & Z are true according to his invoice and case file he sent me via email. As for being unskilled, incompetent, and dishonest, well your drawing that conclusion...I don't say that as fact. My conclusion for "poor knowledge" is based on the fact that he doesn't know how to do a till tap in PA, even though I asked him about it.

But seriously, if you say "Coke sucks, Pepsi rules!"....then that would be cause for alarm for you quincy? I think not. That's just silly. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the guy won't sue, he's not that dumb. Also, if he does, I'm not worried. I followed retraction procedure as listed by the AP in addition to posting 100% factual information or opinion stated as such.

 

[quincy]

I do not share your optimism. I disagree with your interpretation of the agreement you signed. I find parts of your review to be defamatory. I believe your retraction falls short. And I think Coke rules and Pepsi sucks.

But I am not the judge and jury, so what I think really does not matter a whole heck of a lot.

You said in your review, "I am currently in a lawsuit with Attorney X because of overbilling. Here is why: I allege the following in my complaint." Then you provide details of your complaint - charges made which may, or may not, be supportable by you in court. You believe they can be. Good.

Then you add to your review: "Poor knowledge, but he will say it confidently. He is only good for very low level legal paperwork." Potentially defamatory.

I say the attorney has a defamation action he can pursue against you that he could win, and I think he is more likely to pursue one since you have posted your review on more than one site. Whether he will sue, however, is anyone's guess and, I imagine, it could be dependent on what sort of reputational injury he can demonstrate.

It almost seems from the comments you made on Yelp that you are hoping Attorney X sues you. You say: "Attorney X has also threatened to sue me for giving him a bad review...If he sues, you will be able to follow the progress of that suit at the website address above, except Attorney X will be the plaintiff." I don't know what your goals or your motives are here. If you are looking forward to going up against a fairly well-known attorney in court, well, then, okay. I wish you luck. You will probably need it.

As for following AP's retraction procedure, you should know that a retraction must correct all aspects of the review that are false and defamatory, a retraction without a deletion can demonstrate fault, retractions do not necessarily prevent lawsuits, and the AP recommendation is to seek the advice of an attorney before doing anything.

I recommend you seek the advice of an attorney in your area. Better late than never.

 

[blueturnaround]

Ok, noted. Thanks for the input, probably viewpoints I wouldn't come up with myself. However, you do omit important points, which are directly spoken to in the cases you provided in earlier posts. Those cases speak about how opinion ought to be presented. I feel my opinion when presented clearly fits the guidelines. Plus, I go thru exceptional lengths to express that it is my opinion based on event X. Anyway, enough of that. As for the attorney, I don't think he's a well known attorney. He's probably less than 40 years old. Do you know him?

As for posting reviews, I hired the guy based on the internet reviews....for all I know, the guy could just make up fake emails and give himself positive reviews, or have his friends write reviews...who knows. I'm not saying that's what he does, but I think my review provides accuracy so other people don't potentially share my experience. As for letting people follow up on the case, I just think thats good honesty. What good is a review if you don't know if its real? Just more honest accuracy.

I've not lost a case yet, because the truth is on my side and I keep excellent records.

Quincy, would you like to pay for my attorney consultation? If I could afford an attorney every time a outrageous threat happens, well, I wouldn't be here on this forum! Plus, I thought you were an attorney...no?

I'll post updates for your entertainment if nothing else.

 

[You Are Guilty]

An attorney who provides services to the public, like any other provider, will occasionally run into an unsatisfied customer. Sometimes their dissatisfaction is objectively justified, but more often than not, people get upset for all sorts of things they have no legitimate right to be, whether it be the result of a misunderstanding, or unrealistic expectations, or something else.

In the latter situation, attorneys I've known tend to "let sleeping dogs lie" with respect to upset clients, even those who post negative reviews. The thinking generally is that even if the lawyer were to sue and prevail, they may win the battle but lose the war. In other words, the bad PR from 1) suing a former client, combined with 2) airing the client's complaints publicly, even if they are completely fabricated, is more damaging to their reputation than winning a silly lawsuit.

Now, the problem arises when you deal with an attorney who, for whatever reason, isn't concerned with the bigger picture. Perhaps his rep sucks so badly already that another lawsuit could do no further harm. Maybe he's just so pissed off in this instance that he's wiling to take the hit. Whatever the cause, a threat to sue from an attorney should never be taken lightly. Not only do they have the financial capability to file as well as the procedural know-how to game the system in their favor, they also have the intangibles in their favor, like the fact that they probably know the judges and court clerks, or that your judge is also a lawyer and could be sympathetic to your adversary.

With that caveat, please let us know how this unfolds. Good luck.

 

[quincy]

I second everything You Are Guilty said.

Your attorney, blueturnaround, was involved in a widely-publicized civil rights matter, which is why he is known.

I always provide dollars to anonymous posters on this site so that they can pay for attorney consultations. Your check is in the mail.

Good luck.

 

[Willlyjo]

Ok thanks. I appreciate the gloom & doom perspective that you give. The info you gave makes me feel that I don't have anything to worry about.

Plus, I offered him a chance to tell me what was untrue so that I could retract, he didn't take it.

I don't understand why you think the outcome of the case has anything to do with this. I didn't say he did X, Y, & Z....I said, I filed a complaint alleging X, Y, & Z. Which is true. I also provided a source where the suit could be followed up on.

I do really think your protecting the fraternity, but hey, that's life.

Contrary to popular belief, you did not commit any defamation if, as you say, you noted in your review that you filed a complaint alleging X, Y and Z. Since you also provided a source where your Complaint can be checked out, pretty much protects you against defamation.

As we all know (or should), anything said or written in a litigation environment even though it may be defamation, is free from legal redress. Also, documents in ongoing litigation can usually be accessed by the public, who would be able to read the complaint and see the allegations. No indications of defamation from what I see as far as anything you've posted or said you posted.

 

[quincy]

Willlyjo, did you read the complaint? Did you examine the invoice? Did you see blueturnaround's exhibits? Have you read blueturnaround's reviews on the sites where they appear? Do you know anything about defamation?

I did and I have and I do. I will stick by my answers and my advice.


Edit to add, just so there is no confusion or mistake:

What Willlyjo wrote above is not entirely accurate as written. The republication of statements made in a complaint are not always protected by privilege (for a good discussion, see Salzano v North Media Group, Inc, et al, 993 A 2d 778, 2010). The privilege can be defeated. Should he be sued for defamation, however, blueturnaround may find some support for a defense in First Lehigh Bank v Cowen, 700 A 2d 498, 502, Pa Super Ct (1997), and in Hanish v Westinghouse Broad Co, 487 F.Supp 397, 401, E.D. Pa (1980).

What Willlyjo said about immunity from suit for defamatory statements made in a "litigation environment" is misleading. It takes more than just being in a "litigation environment" to have defamatory statements safe from suit. And there can be "legal redress" for defamatory statements that are made during the course of a judicial proceeding (ie. contempt of court, perjury).

What Willlyjo wrote also does not reflect the facts of the matter addressed in this thread. The links to the complaint and the reviews that were provided by blueturnaround in an earlier post were removed to protect the anonymity of blueturnaround and the attorney he is suing. Willlyjo may not have been able, therefore, to review as YAG and I were what was made available by blueturnaround in regards to his complaint. Nevertheless, there has been more to base advice on than what is currently posted in this thread.

The actual agreement letter signed by blueturnaround was not quite as described by blueturnaround in his first post. It was a very short one-page (4? paragraph) letter. There were two paragraphs that spoke to the terms of the agreement and there was a statement above the signature line that said, essentially, that the letter and the terms of the agreement have been read, gone over and understood, and that the letter accurately reflects the understood agreement. As blueturnaround said, the agreement started with, "As we have agreed, we require a retainer of $1500 to begin...it is deemed earned upon signing this agreement..."

The reviews of the attorney that were written by blueturnaround and that appear online now are amended reviews, amended after blueturnaround was threatened with a defamation suit. Defamatory reviews do not have to remain online long to cause reputational injury. Even when a defamatory review is deleted or corrected after appearing, the original review that was posted can still support a defamation suit. Blueturnaround's "amended" reviews do not appear to be amended completely or correctly, however, and potentially could, as they stand, also support a defamation suit. Not all of what was written in blueturnaround's reviews is from his complaint. He would have been far wiser merely to post the link to the court case than to expound on what was in the complaint.

Finally, blueturnaround is claiming in his complaint that he is entitled to a $1375 refund, out of the $1500 "earned upon signing the agreement" retainer he paid.

 

[Willlyjo]

Willlyjo, did you read the complaint? Did you examine the invoice? Did you see blueturnaround's exhibits? Have you read blueturnaround's reviews on the sites where they appear? Do you know anything about defamation?

I did and I have and I do. I will stick by my answers and my advice.


Edit to add, just so there is no confusion or mistake:

What Willlyjo wrote above is not entirely accurate as written. The republication of statements made in a complaint are not always protected by privilege (for a good discussion, see Salzano v North Media Group, Inc, et al, 993 A 2d 778, 2010). The privilege can be defeated. Should he be sued for defamation, however, blueturnaround may find some support for a defense in First Lehigh Bank v Cowen, 700 A 2d 498, 502, Pa Super Ct (1997), and in Hanish v Westinghouse Broad Co, 487 F.Supp 397, 401, E.D. Pa (1980).

What Willlyjo said about immunity from suit for defamatory statements made in a "litigation environment" is misleading. It takes more than just being in a "litigation environment" to have defamatory statements safe from suit. And there can be "legal redress" for defamatory statements that are made during the course of a judicial proceeding (ie. contempt of court, perjury).

What Willlyjo wrote also does not reflect the facts of the matter addressed in this thread. The links to the complaint and the reviews that were provided by blueturnaround in an earlier post were removed to protect the anonymity of blueturnaround and the attorney he is suing. Willlyjo may not have been able, therefore, to review as YAG and I were what was made available by blueturnaround in regards to his complaint. Nevertheless, there has been more to base advice on than what is currently posted in this thread.

The actual agreement letter signed by blueturnaround was not quite as described by blueturnaround in his first post. It was a very short one-page (4? paragraph) letter. There were two paragraphs that spoke to the terms of the agreement and there was a statement above the signature line that said, essentially, that the letter and the terms of the agreement have been read, gone over and understood, and that the letter accurately reflects the understood agreement. As blueturnaround said, the agreement started with, "As we have agreed, we require a retainer of $1500 to begin...it is deemed earned upon signing this agreement..."

The reviews of the attorney that were written by blueturnaround and that appear online now are amended reviews, amended after blueturnaround was threatened with a defamation suit. Defamatory reviews do not have to remain online long to cause reputational injury. Even when a defamatory review is deleted or corrected after appearing, the original review that was posted can still support a defamation suit. Blueturnaround's "amended" reviews do not appear to be amended completely or correctly, however, and potentially could, as they stand, also support a defamation suit. Not all of what was written in blueturnaround's reviews is from his complaint. He would have been far wiser merely to post the link to the court case than to expound on what was in the complaint.

Finally, blueturnaround is claiming in his complaint that he is entitled to a $1375 refund, out of the $1500 "earned upon signing the agreement" retainer he paid.

Nothing wrong with my post Quincy! It is very general.

No...I didn't read the review and yes, maybe there is something that is defamatory in it. However, if the review by blueturnaround simply indicated allegations alluding to the the possibility the attorney is a lousy attorney, there is no defamation.

Anything said in a Complaint is protected from a defamation suit. Most Complaints I'm aware of are public record. So if Blueturnaround wants to do a review of his lawyer and refer to what is in his Complaint (as long as he specifies allegations and not facts), it would be stupid of the lawyer to sue for defamation since there isn't any.

Now if Blue's review outright said the lawyer was a lousy lawyer and that he cheated him and stole his money and then his Complaint got dismissed, then his attorney might have a reason to initiate a defamation against Blue.

And finally Quincy, I'm not going to totally rely on your "words of wisdom" since you blatantly misinterpreted in another thread how the Op was possibly a murderer. The company that you thought insinuated that, DIDN'T even in the most radical interpretation. Justalayman called you on it--remember?

I'll stand by what I said--Blue didn't commit defamation if his review was written in the way his own posts described.

The fact that Blue is claiming 1375 of the 1500 is irrelevant. Also, we're not talking about contempt or perjury here, so please don't go off in another direction to support your responses! The fact that there was more said in the review than Blue indicated in his posts only changes my response to add that there could be defamation as a result.

 

[Proserpina]

Nothing wrong with my post Quincy! It is very general.

There is EVERYTHING wrong with your post - and your next paragraph explains why:

No...I didn't read the review and yes, maybe there is something that is defamatory in it. However, if the review by blueturnaround simply indicated allegations alluding to the the possibility the attorney is a lousy attorney, there is no defamation.

Hmmm.

 

[quincy]

Tryingtowin, I assume that you have read the entire thread?

I also assume that you, like latigo and Willlyjo, did not have the opportunity to read the reviews written by blueturnaround or have the chance to go over the information provided on the court site (the complaint, the invoice, the exhibits - including the agreement letter and evidence that supports the charges on the invoice)?

This additional information gives a slightly different picture than what has been told to us by blueturnaround in these posts.

blueturnaround's claim IS that the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, and that is what he hopes to argue successfully. And he may find support for his arguments in the cases we provided. I personally do not read the agreement terms as ambiguous, but it is possible a court might - and that, of course, will be what is important.

blueturnaround is also making the claim that, despite two interrogatories, several subpoenas, numerous emails, letters, faxes, filing fees and phone calls, the attorney only "earned" $125 out of the $1500 (earned upon signing?) retainer fee, when billed at $250 per hour. There are emails that indicate blueturnaround requested that the attorney draft and send the interrogatories and subpoenas. The invoice is a bit sloppy and not well-detailed, but the amounts billed do not, for the most part, seem out of line for a Philadelphia attorney. Again, though, blueturnaround can certainly argue the amounts as being unreasonably high.

These arguments may be difficult (although not impossible) for him to successfully make for several reasons. One reason is that a judge is not stupid. There is evidence to support the billings. Another reason is that blueturnaround is a college-educated professional and is also not stupid. The agreement letter blueturnaround signed was only eight sentences long and was not written in legalese.

The first sentence was "I am pleased that you have chosen me to represent you..." and the last sentence was "I very much appreciate..."

The remaining six sentences had to do with the terms AND the understanding of the terms. After the sentence that starts "As we have agreed.." and the sentence that follows it - the two sentences blueturnaround is claiming are ambiguous (and which you seem to agree are ambiguous) - are these sentences: "Please sign this agreement where indicated and return to me to indicate that you have read this letter, have had the opportunity to go over it with me and that this letter accurately reflects our agreement...Should you have any questions please call the number listed below."

Then, above the signature line it says: Agreed and accepted. blueturnaround signed.

As for the defamatory reviews, the attorney is also not stupid. Most threats of defamation do not result in a suit because of the expense and for the reasons You Are Guilty outlined in his post. But blueturnaround's emails to the attorney were antagonistic, he is suing the attorney for the return of an "already earned" retainer, he did not amend his defamatory reviews until after he was threatened with a defamation suit, and the reviews as they stand now could still support a suit. I imagine if anyone were to consider a suit seriously, it would be this attorney.

The attorney's final email to blueturnaround said that it was "no longer possible to represent you given your unreasonable demands." After reviewing blueturnaround's communications with the attorney, this last email is understandable.

At any rate, there is no telling what will happen. We may find out more in May. I guess the best blueturnaround can hope for in May is that someone like you (or Willlyjo or latigo or, perhaps Dillon) will be deciding the matter.

Edit to add: Willlyjo's understanding of defamation is not quite right (just like Willlyjo ). If offering advice based on "general" defamation information, one must take into consideration that defamation laws vary in significant ways from state to state. "General" defamation information must first be accurate information, and this accurate general information must be applicable to all states - otherwise the information is misleading and the advice offered worthless.

 

[Willlyjo]

There is EVERYTHING wrong with your post - and your next paragraph explains why:





Hmmm.

The paragraph you pointed out supports the fact there is nothing wrong with my post! That paragraph goes on to explain my acknowledgement that Blue has left out information that might have gotten a different response from me. As it was, my response was based on what Blue DID post.

So Pro...you totally missed the gist of that paragraph you referred to in my post. Not surprised.

 

[quincy]

What you posted, Willly, was not only legally sketchy (and wrong in regards to "general" defamation) but what you posted did not apply to blueturnaround, as you should have been aware had you actually read and understood the thread.

Nothing right about it.

Nice job.