This is a slippery slope. So, does every attorney who communicates their client’s position on a matter open themselves up to liability? Certainly Jussie should be subject to a defamation claim but to extend that to his personal attorney would have a chilling effect. However, if these are third party attorneys who didn’t actually represent Jussie but echoed his claims, then they are fair game.
If they were lying and it can be shown they knew they were lying… yes!
If it can be proven that the lawyer knew his client was committing perjury and, after failing to dissuade his client from doing that, refused to withdraw from the case...
I could see the lawyer settling to avoid that coming out.
I think a chilling effect on lawyers is not just an acceptable risk, but a desired side effect given the world of today. So much of this legal case played out in the media, and Lawyers hide behind their degrees to knowingly spread misinformation. Lawyers regularly go far beyond a vigorous defense of their client or a vigorous prosecution of the accused in order to secure desired outcomes by any means necessary. That's not justice or anything evwn close. Pick any recent high profile case and you will find some glaringly unethical action by one side's legal team that shouldn't go without punishment. I personally still can't believe that in the Trayvon Martin case, the prosecution knowingly put a fake witness on the stand to testify in a murder case.
Why not?
Doctors no longer have confidentiality with their patients.
Why should criminal abetting lawyers be any different?
Heck fire. If lawyers become “transparent” the high cost of justice would come down to a reasonable rate and swift justice could become a thing.