Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Puryear Law P.C. and Eric D. Puryear v. Dirk J. Fisher and Jessica Harbaugh. IA defamation
Defendant entered into a contract for legal services with plaintiff attorney in regard to a postconviction-relief matter. He deposited a $1000 retainer and made two more payments totalling $327, and there was an additional $112.50 owing. The attorney reviewed the case and explained options. The client decided to end the representation, and then posted the following online review:
I would not recommend this lawfirm and agree with some of the other neg[ative] reviews as I had the same issues after being charged $1500 for really nothing being done. Can’t even make an appointment until they are paid in full and up to date. You might get 7 days to pay. Working on the road I was overdue before I even had a chance to get the bill.
Attorney sued in Scott County, Iowa, for defamation and breach of contract, but later dropped the contract claim. The case went to jury trial. At the conclusion of the case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court, Judge Nancy S. Tabor, granted the motion. The plaintiff attorney then appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. (The defendant acted as his own attorney for the appeal.)
The plaintiff took the position that the statement was defamatory per se. Quoting an earlier case, the appeals court noted, "statements regarding matters of public concern that are not sufficiently factual to be capable of being proven true or false and statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts are absolutely protected under the Constitution."
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the statements here were an expression of opinion because they:
reflect his subjective reaction as a client of the law firm and negate the impression that he was asserting objective facts; his review was not capable of being proved true or false because when considered as a whole and without considering words in isolation, it generally reflects his strong personal opinion as a client of Puryear. We further observe the use of hyperbolic vocabulary further negates the impression Fishback was asserting objective facts. Finally, considering the broader context in which the statements were made—a website where people post business reviews and comment on their experiences and degrees of satisfaction with particular businesses—indicates the statements were an expression of opinion.
The appeals court also agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff hadn't proven damages. Accordingly, it affirmed.
No. 18-0663 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com