Friday, September 20, 2013

Ill. Lawyer Not Nonplussed by Bad Google + Review; Sues for Defamation

WBBM & WCFS "NewsRadio 780 and 105.9FM"
 "NewsRadio 780 and 105.9FM" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A disgruntled man who posted a negative review of the attorney and law firm that represented his former spouse in the couple's divorce proceedings is the target of a defamation suit by his ex's attorney, according to reports by the Naperville (Ill.) Patch Web site and WBBM newsradio.

Naperville attorney Paul Nordini and his firm are plaintiffs in the suit against Joseph LaBarre that seeks a $110,000 judgment and an injunction ordering LaBarre's allegedly offensive comments stricken from Google +.  The plaintiffs contend they were defamed by LaBarre's review that cites Nordini's alleged "underhanded and deceitful" manner and refers to Nordini's law firm as "ethically shaky" in its representation of LaBarre's former spouse.

Nordini did not respond to media inquiries regarding the suit, in which he claims LarBarre's harsh review is costing him and his firm $10,000 a month in lost potential business. False statements attacking the reputation of a professional, such as an attorney or doctor, are libelous per se, but Nordini faces an uphill battle. LaBarre's purported comments smack of opinion, which carries First Amendment protection against defamation claims, and Nordini will find little solace in this blog's posts that have reported in recent months on unsuccessful attempts by lawyers and dentists to respond to unflattering  Web site reviews by racing to court (See "TUOL" posts 9/3/13, 4/24/13, 2/11/13). From personal domestic relations practice experience, the staff of "TUOL" would add that disgruntled divorce party is an oxymoron.
Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

  1. I know Joe personally. He is an unemployed father of 3. If this is a "good" lawyer protecting his practice from a man's opinion then the question is how is he protecting his client? Does suing an unemployed father struggling to support his children better serve his client? Does making an attempt to financially destroy this dad serve his client's children who need their dad's financial support. Is Nordini making the decision he could pull more money from a struggling dad so screw his client's kid's financial need. And this is over an opinion posted?