Yesterday, I linked to what looked like it might have been a really petty email from George Karl's lawyer to the guy who runs the website FireGeorgeKarl.com. The money part of the email that appeared to be from attorney Bret Adams:
As Coach Karl's counsel I am putting you on notice that I will sue you into bankruptcy should you cross the boundaries of permissible speech.
Lawyers don't really write letters like that, do they? I mean,"I will sue you into bankruptcy?" That's something many lawyers think, no doubt. After a couple of beers, I'd imagine it'd be something some might say. But to write that, during work hours? Really?
Turns out that yes, he really did write that. Chris Tomasson of the Rocky Mountain News:
"In hindsight, I could have written it more professionally, but for 20 years I've been defending my client," Adams said.
Karl said he was unaware of the e-mail until Tuesday.
"It wasn't on my request," said Karl, who said he's not considering legal action. "It was on his friendship towards me."
(Side note: I respect Adams' passion for his long-term friend, but see it as no excuse for bullying.)
Dan Slater of the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog picked up on the story of Bret Adams' email, and contacted Adams. By email, Adams explained some points of law and acknowledged the statement as his own.
Slater wrote that he could see nothing on FireGeorgeKarl.com that would approach Adams' defintion of defamation. Then a whole mess of lawyers and other educated commenters weighed in, and nearly all agreed that Adams had done his client no favor. Some comments from WSJ.com users:
- "Threatening to sue someone into bankruptcy is an abuse of the privilege of being an attorney." -- Ethics counsel
- "Ethical issues aside, a good attorney would not have created the huge risk of negative publicity attendant to making a written(!) threat of this nature. This ridiculous email, which was obviously going to end up posted to the blog, is liable to become a minor media sensation during a particularly slow time during the sports year. (Sportscenter, anyone?) So instead of a minor nuisance of a website created by someone who is (it cannot be denied) an avid fan, the coach now has a potential PR disaster on his hands. Which is more likely to harm the coach's career? An effective attorney would have handled the issue politely and quietly. Better yet, he would have advised his client that such websites are common and should just be ignored." -- Anon
- "Adams asks 'Is your life really this boring and meaningless that you would spend the hours necessary to create such a website?' I ask him 'Is your practice really this boring and meaningless that you would spend the hours necessary to harass and intimidate a fan blog?'" -- Comment by Skywalker
Meanwhile, I have to assume that Andrew Feinstein is loving this. He's the founder of FireGeorgeKarl.com, and while this hasn't cost him a penny, Adams has handed him two big prizes: confirmation that his work resonates in the Karl camp, and a tidy little series of links and mentions in the media.
If you're trying to build a public movement to get George Karl fired, this is a pretty good way to start.
