... Anthony Ciolli, a University of Pennsylvania Law School graduate and former chief education director at AutoAdmit, can press ahead with his lawsuit against Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley, who worked as counsel at San Francisco-based Keker & Van Nest, two Yale Law School students and others.A huge reason not to sue someone: He'll sue you back. How awful!
Ciolli's lawsuit claims that he was wrongly included as a defendant in a case brought in June 2007 by the two law students, who alleged that AutoAdmit defamed them on its discussion board. He also claims that Boston-based Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge rescinded its offer of full-time employment because of the alleged connection between him and the statements about the women.....
Named as defendants in his suit are Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller, the former Yale law students; and ReputationDefender, a public relations firm that represented the students. Also named are Lemley; Keker & Van Nest; the Los Angeles-based law firm Rosen & Associates; and attorney David Rosen. Lemley and Rosen were attorneys for the students.
Ciolli's lawsuit alleges wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false-light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract and unauthorized use of name or likeness.
१० एप्रिल, २००९
About that AutoAdmit litigation.
The latest.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
A huge reason not to sue someone: He'll sue you back. How awful!
A huge reason not to sue someone who is trained as an attorney.
It would be better all around if judges had more leeway (and willingness) to find litigation practices abusive and/or frivolous and sanction participants and their lawyers accordingly. Unfortunately, judges instead usually bend over backwards to excuse or ignore such behavior, leading to litigation that is longer, more expensive and more destructive to innocent parties than is necessary.
Using litigation to feud with people you do not like always seemed wrong to me. Both sides appear to enjoy it too much. Like Hobby Farming, it loses money but it gives some people a purpose in their short, nasty and brutish lives.
Anyone else find it funny under the circumstances that he is suing for libel and slander?
I am barely middle class at my position as an English instructor at a lowly state university, but time and again, I am persuaded I made the right decision the day I finished up my pre-law track undergraduate degree (poli sci and philosophy) and walked away. My classes had been filled with jerks, the kind of people who would steal your classnotes if you got up and went to the bathroom while studying, and idealists, who, God bless them, are doing good things no doubt, but so am I.
I think a good punch in the snout is a fine remedy for most insults, and a lot better than using the courts as a playground.
leading to litigation that is longer, more expensive
with more billable hours. Isn't that a feature, not a bug?
Perhaps I pay too much attention to labels, but I found it amusing that Prof. Althouse did not give this a "lawsuits I hope will fail" label.
Maybe he didn't get the job at Edward Angell because he's never heard of the 'litigation privilege' which has a good chance of barring all of his claims.
It would be better all around if judges had more leeway...
They have the leeway. As you so eloquoently pointed out, they lack the spine.
The problem with sanctioning, etc. attorneys is that they are attorneys. Who sue people for a living and as a hobby (ok, maybe that is just I who has done that, a couple of jury trials for friends).
There is a saying about getting into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Judges who ding attorneys are in a similar position. Sure, they can make it hard on the attorneys in the short run, but a couple years down the road, when it is still dragging on, they are wondering why they bothered.
p.s. As a disclosure of bias, I know Prof. Lemley from when we were both in Austin. We had occasional lunches, and I spoke at some of his CLE conferences.
Beth, I’m sure you are a perfectly good person, but I have spent time in both the legal world and academia and there is no doubt which group are better human beings. I have known lawyers who were absolute jerks, little more than overgrown fraternity boys and middle school bullies.
But the level of vindictiveness and borderline sociopathology amongst academics is simply stunning. I should note I am exempting Professor Althouse and law professors in general and am speaking of people in doctoral and Master’s programs. A very high number of PhD’s in the humanities are simply creepy, creepy human beings. There are heartwarming exceptions, but they are often marginalized or nearing retirement. For people who talk a good liberal game, there are also an inordinate number of sexual harassers and racists. And don’t get me started on the anti-Semites.
Beth,
"I think a good punch in the snout is a fine remedy for most insults,"
So how many assault convictions are there on your record? I'm guessing zero...
A good punch in the snout is the *proper* response to most insults.
And there would be fewer insults and fewer people who failed to understand the limits of polite behavior if we didn't compulsively portray a punch in the snout as off-limits, no matter what, and teach our children that they must "use their words" to diffuse conflict in the face of someone else's inexcusable behavior.
"I should note I am exempting Professor Althouse and law professors in general"
But why? Exempt Althouse specifically, sure, but speaking as a law school graduate from a high-falutin' school, I have no idea why you think law profs are less prone to the St. Vitus' dance of sociopathy than the rest of your vaguely-generalized pool of academics.
That is, unless you're basing your opinion of law profs on Glenn Reynolds and those profs to whom he links regularly.
Maybe he didn't get the job at Edward Angell because he's never heard of the 'litigation privilege' which has a good chance of barring all of his claims.
Does it? It sounds like his case will be based around public statements made by the defendants, not around the court proceedings themselves. I'm pretty sure that the right to file lawsuits does not include the right to knowingly make false and harmful public statements about the person you are suing.
Looking at it again, you're right Revenant. The litigation privilege protects the publications in the complaint, but not the distribution of those to the press. My bad.
Of course, I think he'd still lose in court =)
Kirk, no convictions and more importantly, no lawsuits.
veni, vidi, vici, you have a point and I may need to reconsider whether I exempt law school professors besides Professor Althouse, though I have been very impressed in the past by the simple human decency shown in the writings of Stephen Carter at Yale. You have an interesting metaphor of St. Vitus Dance; I doubt it’s a compliment and those are your words, not mine.
I stand by my assertion that humanities professors are (on the whole) vile creatures. I have never been to law school, but I have known a LOT of lawyers, including some who went to “high-falutin” law schools very much like yours. Again, some were bullies, but most were reasonably decent human beings. Male, female; black, white, yellow, red, and brown; Republican, Democrat; gay, straight; etc. They were, by and large, just head and shoulders above academics.
Anthony Ciolli... can press ahead with his lawsuit against Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley
The biter bit! A bitter bite.
Too bad for Lemley, who seems like a nice guy. He's no Lessig of course
About academics: Henry Kissinger said something to the effect that 'academic politics were so vicious precisely because the stakes were so small.'
Very Very old and ancient wisdom!
Proverbs 25:8:
Do not go out hastily to argue your case; Otherwise, what will you do in the end, When your neighbor humiliates you?
And Buckley said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard." And here is why he said it:
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=a4c46517-f806-4834-b6c4-9bab9efef747&t=c
Here's even older wisdom, Joel: trial by combat.
Combat is the destination, anyway, on our nation's journey away from Justice that has passed through Sophistry. We might as well admit where we're headed.
When will people understand that the Prime Directive of the legal profession is to "INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION".
Preferably their own income, but in any event the income of the 'profession'. Justice? Don't recognize any such concept.
When will people understand that the Prime Directive of the legal profession is to "INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION".
Preferably their own income, but in any event the income of the 'profession'. Justice? Don't recognize any such concept.
When will people understand that the Prime Directive of the legal profession is to "INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION".
Preferably their own income, but in any event the income of the 'profession'. Justice? Don't recognize any such concept.
When will people understand that the Prime Directive of the legal profession is to INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, from the meanest law clerk to the Supreme Court.
Preferably their own income, but in any event the income of the 'profession'.
Justice? Don't know what that means!
Sorry about the repetitions. The system claimed not to know me, then ended up printing all my repeated efforts to get past the guardians.
I am poor and in debt. I can't hire a lawyer. If sued, I will have to defend myself. If I lose, the only option I have is suicide. However, the bullet in the bottom of the magazine is mine.
Anyone filing suit should wonder, what my plans are for the bullets above that final bullet.
When the Legal System does not support Justice, moral men will pursue Justice by other means. Beneath that blindfold, you can see Justice wrinkle the corners of her eyes, just a little, as she suppresses her smile.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा