Is Blogging Sanctionable? You Have Got To Love Some Lawyers.

I am all for creative arguments and rational interpretation of the laws.  But, you have got to love some lawyers in how far they will go to discredit the other side.  I have calmed down much since my younger years about what I consider outrageous arguments in pleadings.  I try to take thinks as they happen, brief and argue accordingly for my position.  However, what some attorneys will plead still amazes me. 

I was recently served with something new that is of interest.  In an adversary proceeding filed, a Defendant claims that (1) I should be denied payment for my legal services, and (2) and that sanctions are appropriate against me under what is essentially Rule 11 of the federal rules because I maintain "a website, with a URL of http://www.stayviolation.com, and advertises for debtors to have him file cases."  Somehow, based upon this fact and some others, the existence of my practice blog has caused the debtor to assert a claim in "bad faith, for the purposes of harassment, and to increase the cost of litigation.

I do not advertise for debtors to file cases, as the answer and counterclaim suggests.  I accept referrals from bankruptcy attorneys who do not, or cannot, bring adversary proceedings themselves to protect rights gained by debtors in filing bankruptcy.  My blog is primarily geared to providing information to bankruptcy attorneys.  A reading of my practice blog would show that it reports on cases relevant to my practice area and on news related to bankruptcy, hopefully in which bankruptcy attorneys are interested.  I rarely, if ever, accept a client directly.  I do not solicit cases from debtors directly.  They come to me.  It is just beyond me how making known to other attorneys that you will accept work in a particular practice area (in which the law prescribes a remedy) is wrong or somehow so reprehensible that it requires some special action or sanction by the Court.

However, this is the first time that I am aware in which a defendant has filed a pleading in which a part of its defense and a counterclaim for sanctions is that Plaintiff's legal counsel maintains a practice blog.

In the area of mine does not smell, I find it interesting that opposing counsel has a "website", as he calls it, in which he solicits, among other things, litigation from financial institutions and "creditors rights representation".  Unfortunately, it is not a blog.

To paraphrase Capital One's tag line, maybe we should ask, "What's in your pleadings"?

In defense of blogging, any ideas?

Comments

[Sheryl Schelin]

"I rarely, if ever, accept a client directly. I do not solicit cases from debtors directly"

I'm sorry - am I missing something? So what if you do accept direct clients? So what if your blog is aimed at debtors? Is it truly this Defendant's assertion that debtor attorneys are subject to greater restrictions on their First Amendment rights to advertise?

I maintain two practice blogs - one of which is geared towards my bankruptcy and consumer law practice. Lots of debtor attorneys do likewise. This assertion makes no sense to me. But I guess that was part of your point. I guess mine is that it shouldn't matter whether your business is referral-based or not.