Brothers Who Say They Played a Role in Fake Attack on Jussie Smollett Can Sue Smollett’s Defense Attorney for Defamation: Judge

Law & Crime ^ | Mar 19, 2022 | Aaron Keller

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Two brothers who agreed to attack Jussie Smollett as part of what those brothers now say was a fake hate crime hoax can move forward with a defamation claim against one of Smollett’s attorneys, a federal judge has ruled.

According to court records, the two brothers, Olabinjo Osundairo and Abimbola Osundairo, sued attorneys Mark Geragos, Tina Glandian, and the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm in 2019.

“Mr. Smollett told Plaintiffs, in private, that he needed a favor from them: they were to help him stage a social media hoax and pretend to attack him,” the lawsuit says. “Mr. Smollett’s motivation was simple. He wanted his employer and the public to notice and appreciate him as a successful Black, openly gay actor. So, Mr. Smollett directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose.”.....

That is the backdrop for the original lawsuit from the Osundairo brothers against the aforementioned defendants. It reads, in part:

Mr. Smollett’s attorneys, faced with an outraged public, did not retreat after their success. Instead they doubled down, not simply affirming that Mr. Smollett was a wholly innocent victim, but that (among other accusations) Plaintiffs [the brothers Osundairo] unequivocally led a criminally homophobic, racist, and violent attack against Mr. Smollett. Defendants made these comments knowing they were untrue to distract from Mr. Smollett’s farce and to promote themselves and the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm. This vitriol against Plaintiffs is tortious and comprises the substance of the following allegations.......

The judge then recapped the ruling:

All claims against Defendants Geragos and Geragos & Geragos Law Firm are dismissed. Defendants Geragos and Geragos & Geragos Law Firm are terminated. Counts I and II survive based on the “whiteface” comment. The remaining claims are dismissed.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Should be fun to follow.

[circlecity]

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.

[Libloather]

Folks in Chicago should be careful - Jussie Smollett’s attacker is on the loose again.

[tennmountainman]

I love it. His lawyers will have to defend themselves in a civil suit.
Hope the 2 brothers bleed them dry.

[pgyanke]

So, does every attorney who communicates their client’s position on a matter open themselves up to liability?

If they were lying and it can be shown they knew they were lying… yes!

[mewzilla]

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.

[escapefromboston]

Finally some good news

[FlingWingFlyer]

If Smellit gets away with his racist crap, I don’t want to hear any minorities bitching about “racism” EVER AGAIN. What Smellit did is despicable and indefensible. Keeping the “white supremacy” myth alive with bullsh*t LIES.

[Deplorable American1776]

Popcorn, get your popcorn...🤓

[jz638]

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.

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.

[fella]

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.

[Rebelbase]

"2:00 am, you were walking...16 degrees...MAGA hats...MAGA HATS? IN CHICAGO?".

[Newtoidaho]

The story that will never die. Because it’s too....juicy?

[circlecity]

“If lawyers become “transparent” the high cost of justice would come down to a reasonable rate and swift justice could become a thing.”

No, It would become infinitely more expensive. If the lawyer has to become a guarantor of whatever the client says then they would have to charge 100 times as much. Because they would become a personal defendant every time their client lost a case.