Cosby Loses Bid in Supreme Court to Stop California Defamation Case
The case Cosby v. Dickinson challenged a California decision that said a defamation lawsuit brought against Cosby and his onetime lawyer Martin Singer of Lavely & Singer could go forward.
October 01, 2018 at 11:23 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Disgraced comedian Bill Cosby was dealt another blow Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of his appeal in a California defamation case brought by one of Cosby's alleged rape victims.
The case Cosby v. Dickinson challenged a California Court of Appeal decision that said a defamation lawsuit brought by Janice Dickinson against Cosby and his onetime lawyer Martin Singer of Lavely & Singer could go forward in spite of precedents that protect the speech of lawyers who speak out on behalf of their clients.
Singer was dismissed from the suit, but the California ruling may have ramifications for lawyers' free speech rights.
In 2014, Dickinson accused Cosby of raping her, and Singer issued a statement denying the accusation and pointing out previous contradictory statements she had made.
In a petition to the high court, Sarah Kelly-Kilgore of Greenberg Gross, counsel of record for Cosby, cited the 1991 Supreme Court case Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that a lawyer “may take reasonable steps to defend a client's reputation … including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.”
The California court ignored that principle in its decision, Kelly-Kilgore said in her petition and “will improperly chill attorneys' speech and prevent any person—the innocent along with the guilty—from relying upon his or her attorney to respond to public accusations of misconduct.”
She also asserted that “if the California court's decision is allowed to stand, attorneys will be faced with an impossible choice: either provide a swift and decisive response to accusations against a client, thereby placing both the attorney and client at risk of a defamation suit; or remain mute in the face of highly publicized accusations, and risk the devastating harm to the client that flows from leaving such accusations unanswered.”
The California Supreme Court denied review, setting the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kelly-Kilgore pointed out that, in similar Cosby-related defamation cases, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Third circuits ruled that Singer's statements were protected under the First Amendment, and the cases were dismissed. One of those cases, McKee v. Cosby, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is still pending.
Alan Greenberg of Greenberg Gross, a lawyer for Cosby, said in a statement Monday:
“The litigation continues in state court and may come back to the Supreme Court in a different procedural posture. There is a critical issue of freedom of speech at stake. Attorneys and their clients must not be subjected to collateral litigation simply because they issue public denials of public allegations.”
Cosby was sentenced last week in Pennsylvania to three to 10 years in prison on charges of aggravated indecent assault stemming from claims he drugged and sexually assaulted a woman in 2004. Cosby's lawyers have vowed to appeal the conviction and sentence.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
- 1How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 2A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
- 3From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Julie Cantor, Associate General Counsel at Studs, Inc.
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Chris Correnti, President & CEO & General Counsel AGC America, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250