It seems that Neal Rauhauser has been trolling for a pro bono lawyer for a friend.
IANAL, but the ones I’ve talked to say that anyone with a righteous libel claim against a defendant with deep pockets should have no trouble finding a lawyer willing to represent him on a fee-contingent basis. Pro bono representation is generally provided to defendants rather than plaintiffs. Of course, those observations come from many of the same lawyers who told me that the reason they suspect that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is pro se is that he can’t find a lawyer willing to risk his law license by signing court papers making the unfounded allegations Kimberlin is bringing.
hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.
Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.
So sad. A self-styled “journalist” in Elkridge doesn’t seem to understand that, by definition, an ALLEGATION is not defamatory because it is not a statement of fact.
If I recall, the actual charge was made by a family member of Kimberlin, if that’s the case we’re talking about. While bloggers reported on parts of their discussions w/that family member, and about the public hearings, it seems you were reporting on a new wrinkle in a case involving a serial bomber, perjurer and habitual litigant. Who is of course a public figure since his crimes were notorious, and who runs non-profits with public policy objectives and websites.
While no one here seems to want to lie about the guy, it sure seems hard to damage the reputation of a guy who was convicted of blowing off a guy’s leg at a high school football game, and putting a bomb under a police vehicle. Again, only if that’s the Rauhauser “friend” who is the subject of the tweet. If we’re not actually talking about vexatious pro se litigant, serial bomber and public figure Brett Kimberlin, well. Nevermind.
While some plaintiff’s attorneys have flexible standards regarding frivolous claims, all the good ones have standards about just how crazy a client they will accept.
And they like to get paid.
Taking a case that’s likely to wind up losing to counterclaims—if it survives a motion to dismiss—isn’t a wise strategy for a lawyer working for a contingent fee.
Nope, not wise at all.