Anonymous wrote:I can't believe that people would actually hire attorneys because of posts on DC Urbanmom. I would assume that most of these people are from daycares (due to bloggers stating they are no good, etc.)?

I found this on the net which I think is a really good overview:
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

With defamation type of lawsuits, truth is usually an affirmative defense. But if something is absolutely UNTRUE, you may be liable for allowing the republishing to continue. This may be hard to decipher when the sources are anonymous.

My first thought was doctors, particularly OBs.

well, I think anonymous unsubstantiated rumors posted about a person's business are uncool. That is a person's livelihood.

I find it shocking that people would pay lawyers "with some regularity" to write letters to Jeff about content here. The one time I had to hire a lawyer to write a letter (involving a fence dispute with a neighbor) it cost me like $300.

I believe that the confidentiality has to do with certain litigation privileges accorded to settlement communications between parties, not that you have to keep the letter confidential from the public. In some jurisdictions, courts protect settlement communications from being admitted as part of the factual record in court -- the idea is that you want to encourage frank communication between parties while they're trying to settle (because settling is good), so you say that those conversations are protected from being later used in court.

If you're getting a lot of those letters, though, it would be a good idea to consult with an attorney quickly about it. Shouldn't cost you too much just to learn your rights.

I can't believe that people would actually hire attorneys because of posts on DC Urbanmom. I would assume that most of these people are from daycares (due to bloggers stating they are no good, etc.)?

I found this on the net which I think is a really good overview:
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

With defamation type of lawsuits, truth is usually an affirmative defense. But if something is absolutely UNTRUE, you may be liable for allowing the republishing to continue. This may be hard to decipher when the sources are anonymous.

10:43 here -- Turns out my memory is flawed. PC was not sued. They just mocked the lawfirm's copyright claim. http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/does-copyright.html

You are good. Post away.

Anonymous wrote:More on the (in)ability to claim copyright over cease-and-desist letters:
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/dont-publish-th.html
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/does-copyright.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/10/misuse-via-cease-desist-letters.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080125/18070575.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080126/13203876.shtml

Thanks again. I'll work through these. I just finished the earlier article. I found it very interesting. Now I want to go to law school.

Huh. I don't remember any recent posts about Dan Snyder here...

Contact the electronic freedom foundation-https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/overview

I recall a law firm sue Public Citizen for copyright violations when PC published a cease and desist letter. This was in 2007 or 2008. Not sure of the outcome.

More on the (in)ability to claim copyright over cease-and-desist letters:
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/dont-publish-th.html
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/does-copyright.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/10/misuse-via-cease-desist-letters.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080125/18070575.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080126/13203876.shtml

I think letters are owned by the recipient. This is why people have been able to auction off famous people's letters, because they were sent to the sellers.

Thanks. I hadn't thought about the copyright issue. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I understand that it is not legal advice and I won't be holding anyone to anything they post in this thread.

I cannot think of any reason why you cannot post the lawyers' letters, or any possible claim they might have against you. The copyright argument mentioned by PP is clever, but my immediate rebuttal would be "fair use," and this webpage -- http://www.citmedialaw.org/copyright-misuse-and-cease-and-desist-letters -- seems to agree.

Same caveats as PP about this not being legal advice, me not representing you, etc.

Hypothetically, if you're contacted by a laywer you're not obligated to keep the attorney's contact with you private. So you can post and say "John Jones of Jones & Associates contacted me about this thread and asked me to take it down." If you were to scan a letter or cut & paste an email from an attorney they might arguably have a copyright claim against you, because the writing presumably is the attorney's original creative work. In addition, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act?) has provisions that require website owners to take down copyrighted content in certain circumstances.

The above speculation is not legal advice. I'm not an expert on any of this, and I cannot and do not reprent you in any matter related to the above. If you think you need legal advice you should contact an attorney.

With some regularity I receive letters from attorneys who are representing clients that are upset with a post or posts on this site. It is my inclination to make such letters public and I have done so at times in the past. I am wondering if I am within my rights to continue this practice or whether I have some obligation to keep the letters private?

Furthermore, if the attorney specifically states that he does not give me permission to publicize his letter, am I obligated not to publish it? I do not feel that I should be under any obligation to which I have not consented. Therefore, the attorney should first obtain my agreement to keep our correspondence confidential. Is this a sound position?

My feeling is that since these letters are aimed at influencing discussions on the site and in response to messages posted by our users, the users deserve to know about such correspondence. Obviously, the attorneys tend to feel differently. I would be interested in the opinions of the attorneys out there.