I have blogged about this before, but I thought you might like to know how it turned out. A lawyer in one of my cases (whose name I will not mention because ultimately I do not want to embarrass the lawyer), filed an affirmative defense stating that I should not allow to recover attorneys' fees and costs in my case because I have a practice blog and URL of StayViolation.Com. The lawyer followed this up with a motion to dismiss my lawsuit in which he repeated, as part of that motion, this defense. I had to file a response to his motion to dismiss, but I got upset and filed a motion to require him to strike the scandalous matter for his pleading. I tend to think it was a your's stinks and mine does not defense because this lawyer maintains his own practice are website, as do most attorneys appearing in federal court. I also filed a motion to dismiss his counterclaim based on what is essentially Rule 11 of the Federal Rules. We wasted hours in briefing and appearing in Court. In accordance with my brief the Court agreed this is a free speech issue that does not have its place the the litigation. The Court ordered that the scandalous issue be stricken and the pleading amended to remove it. He also dismissed the attorneys' counterclaim, but denied opposing counsel's motion to dismiss my client's lawsuit. Sadly, the relationship between counsel continues to be strained. However, to those who were wondering, it is still legal to maintain a practice blog and still get paid, at least in the federal courts in Texas.
Recent Comments