# Justice Triumphs in Libel Case **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 20, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984 "2005-02-20T03:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/21 "2005-02-23T18:48:50Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Out of curiosity, **Minty** , is the problem that she’s talking about a case or that she identified which case she was talking about? If it’s the former, there would seem to be a lame double standard at work here… If the matter cannot be identified, then it would be something of a stretch to accuse the speaker of breaching confidentiality. But this obviously isn’t an instance where the OP stated something generic like “I once worked on a case, and boy did they ever sound sleazy to me. I was so happy when the jury awarded damages to the plaintiff.” > [@threemae](#): > > It’s interesting that you’re happy to bitch about a court reporter, but you’re saying that you’ve never commented on parts of a case that are public record? I’m dubious. What’s so hard to believe? I have never publicly commented on any identifiable case on which I have served as legal counsel, except as authorized by the client or as expressly authorized by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. I’m sure you could probably find a few generic comments on unidentifiable matters, _e.g.,_ “It sucks being a defendant in South Texas,” but I take my professional obligations of confidentiality quite seriously, thank you very much. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/22 "2005-02-23T18:57:10Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > What’s so hard to believe? Well, I’ve heard lawyers bitch about their cases before, on this very board, and I didn’t know the confidentiality rules were so involved. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/23 "2005-02-23T19:14:59Z")
You’re allowed to bitch about your cases. What you’re not allowed to do is identify them when you’re bitching about them. Having said that, I do not endorse the amount of detail Hamlet provided in that thread, which could have enabled someone to track down the specific case he was commenting on (unless, of course, he changed the details to prevent it from being identified). ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/24 "2005-02-23T19:32:53Z")
> [@wring](#): > > I may comment that “I had a client once who robbed a 7 - 11, so drunk he didn’t realize that he knew the clerk” but that’s insufficient info to identify him. hehehe…I live in a small town. If you made that comment _here_ people would know right away who you were talking about. In fact, he has bought me a drink a few times when I’ve run into him. I make an excuse (pull out cell phone) and leave after I finish my drink. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/25 "2005-02-23T20:02:23Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Specifics I know about a case **through my profession** are not mine to divulge/comment about as fodder at parties, etc in my social life. > > YMMV. Absolutely. A standard I hold to as well. What I commented on were the aspects as reported **in the local major newspaper** , which published direct quotations of both trial testimony and deposition segments read into the record. Ain’t one word I wrote here that goes beyond that. My bad, I should have phrased the OP more along the lines of: “I have been following this case because I proofread pretrial depositions, including some in this case, and unlike most cases I encounter I cared about the outcome. The testimony at trial revealed” callous disregard, DA’s office’s complicity, etc. Which is what I meant despite my infelicitous phrasing. As to “poisoning the well” for any retrial – I’d say the newspaper did a far more thorough job of that than anything said here. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/26 "2005-02-23T20:29:29Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > What I commented on were the aspects as reported **in the local major newspaper** , which published direct quotations of both trial testimony and deposition segments read into the record. Ain’t one word I wrote here that goes beyond that. > [@The OP](#): > > I make my living proofreading pretrial discovery depositions for court reporters, and read several of the depositions taken in preparing for the trial of this case. They were examinations under oath by the plaintiff’s lawyer of the reporter and his bosses at the newspaper, and of several sources for the libellous articles. > > It was damned ugly, what the lawyer found when he turned over those rocks. The more I read, the angrier I got at the callous disregard for accuracy, let alone the immense damage done to the judge and his family by distorted quotes fed to a reporter indifferent to their truth, from a DA’s office out to sabotage a judge they didn’t like. Not the one mention of the press reports in your comments, except, of course, for the reporting that got the Herald sued for libel in the first place. So you’ll have to forgive me for assuming that you were talking about the deposition transcripts you read, seeing as how that’s pretty clearly what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/27 "2005-02-23T20:47:35Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Absolutely. A standard I hold to as well. What I commented on were the aspects as reported **in the local major newspaper** , which published direct quotations of both trial testimony and deposition segments read into the record. Ain’t one word I wrote here that goes beyond that. > . not quite. See, I said that I wouldn’t comment on **any** case publically that I knew professionally, w/sufficient information as to identify that case **even though the information is public**. I will comment (in public) about cases I know professionally w/o sufficient info to identify that case (what you did here specifically identified the case) I will comment in private w/specifics about cases I know **if and only if** there is a professional reason to do so. I will comment in public about cases that I’ve got no professional contact w/, with or without sufficient info to identify the case. IOW - if I’m involved professionally in the case, **I do not comment socially about the case allowing folks to know I"m involved professionally w/the case, _even if the info specified is public_.** It’s unprofessional. Period. YMOV, since you did exactly identify the case and that you were involved on it in a professional manner. to the extent that I have not and will not let certain family members know that so and so has a criminal record. Is it public info? yes. Do they know the guy? yes. Do they know I know the guy? Socially yes, professional, _they don’t know and don’t have the right to know_ ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/28 "2005-02-23T22:54:28Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > hehehe…I live in a small town. If you made that comment _here_ people would know right away who you were talking about. I suspect that a resume entry like that doesn’t narrow things down much among Wring’s clients. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/29 "2005-02-24T00:22:31Z")
A question for you confidentiality discussants: As I read **ETF** ’s comments, it appears that information that she was made privy to under circumstances in which confidentiality governed was then brought out in open court and made a part of the record of the case, to which she or any other individual having interest could obtain access. Because she felt strongly about this case, she pitted the libel-committing newspaper and made references to the formerly-confidential information she had processed, which was now public record. Am I correct in understanding that your feeling is that ethically if you are provided information in a circumstance invoking confidentiality, it is then your obligation to preserve that confidentiality, even if the information in question is presented publicly? For example, suppose **ETF** ’s California counterpart was engaged in taking depositions from boys who had stayed at Neverland. Those depositions presumably will be read into the record at Michael Jackson’s trial, and they or excerpts from them will become front page news. In other words, anybody with access to a decent newspaper will be able to read and cite them. Except, according to the theory I hear being propounded, that California court reporter who first recorded the depositions, who will be obliged to keep her/his mouth shut on what every other citizen can access and speak about _ad nauseam_. I do have a practical purpose beyond establishing the ethics surrounding **ETF** ’s bringing the matter up in this thread. Two years ago, my ex-boss was offered a “special position” in a Georgia-based IT holding company. In deciding whether to invest in it, he obtained a bunch of confidential information regarding that company’s assets, agreements, and plans, and shared it with me to seek my opinion. I presumed, and continue to presume, that my employ as his confidential secretary and his documented assurance of confidentiality as to the contents, required me to keep the information I learned confidential. I have recently learned that most of the information I was provided in confidential circumstances has come to light in the settlement of an ongoing lawsuit, and the acquisition of smaller companies that was proposed has now occurred. Since that information is now available to any reader of the _Atlanta Business Journal_, the business section of the _Constitution_, etc., may I consider myself released from that confidentiality? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/30 "2005-02-24T00:39:59Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Am I correct in understanding that your feeling is that ethically if you are provided information in a circumstance invoking confidentiality, it is then your obligation to preserve that confidentiality, even if the information in question is presented publicly? That’s a different issue than the one presented here. The breach of confidentiality is not the disclosure of information, but rather of the OP’s _opinion_ based on information acquired in the performance of her duties. It’s the difference between stating that “Witness X testified Y” and “Witness X is a guilty piece of crap who got everything that was coming to him.” In general, it is not a violation of confidentiality to disclose information, even though obtained under confidentiality, that has subsequently become generally known. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/31 "2005-02-24T01:26:03Z")
**Poly** , for me, ethical issue isnt _what was disclosed_, but rather discussion of issue in a public venue (not professional). Unless my employer (and the client involved) has given permission, my involvement in the situation is not my right to disclose, opinions, attitudes, etc. look at it this way, what would you feel about say, a teacher, a secretary at your lawyers office, the person who filed your unemployement claim, posting to a message board about you, after the paper published an account of your lost lawsuit against your neighbor, disclosing the relationship? Inappropriate, unprofessional IME. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984/32 "2005-02-24T16:24:00Z")
Thanks to **minty** and **wring** for the clarifications. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-triumphs-in-libel-case/290984.md?page=1)