You may have read of the decision of the High Court of Australia holding that Australian courts had jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim of an Australian resident against Dow Jones (as publisher of Barron's) and decide the claim under Australian law based solely on the availability of the allegedly libelous statement in Barron's online edition.

The opinion is available free via FindLaw--if you can spare 300 KB of bandwidth. Since I hadn't read any British Commonwealth case for business or pleasure since the 1980's, I forgot how long a case where every judge publishes his views could run (this case contains 200+ hyperlinked footnotes).
I can understand the US press's contention (as set forth in Wednesday's editorial in Dow Jones' The Wall Street Journal (subscriber site) that an internet publisher should only be bound by the law of the place of publication (be it the location of the printing press or the bank of servers).

On the other hand, if you read the opinion, the plaintiff (cannily) limited his claim to the loss of reputation in his home [Australia] state of Victoria. It's true that permitting the victim of alleged libel to sue in his home state under his own state's law can cause a good deal of mischief (see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)(protecting New York newspaper from Alabama jury by Federalizing US libel law). Nonetheless, it appears that limiting Internet libel claims to the home jurisdiction of an alleged victim draws a sufficiently bright line so as to permit the publisher some means of predicting its exposure. Furthermore, as the Australian court observed (search for the text at footnote 52 (citing American cases), most likely libel defendants either have huge resources via-a-vis plaintiffs (e.g., Dow Jones) or have no assets in the jurisdiction (bloggers like me). As a lawyer, I wouldn't take a case such as that of the Australian plaintiff without a substantial retainer. That may be the most effective control on vexatious Internet libel litigation.

Edward R. Wiest
12/13/2002 10:56:46 AM - [Link]

Practical Problems of Work/Family Life

Please forgive the writer's absence of the past few days. I've been with at least one of my kids as they cope with the GI/upper repiratory bug that has been floating North of Boston.

FYI--the Boston Bar Association's 1999 task force report Facing the Grail: Confronting the Cost of Work-Family Imbalancespoke to the concerns of lawyers in large and medium size firms. As a member of the steering committee of the BBA's Solo and Small Firm section I've suggested somebody should discuss similar issues facing solos (like me). Someday, maybe I'll find time to work on the project. . .

Edward R. Wiest
12/13/2002 9:52:47 AM - [Link]

Thoughts on a Merry-Go Round That Never Stops

Wednesday?s Wall Street Journal (subscription site) reported on the fee applications of professionals (both lawyers and accountants) working for Enron and its official creditors' representatives in ongoing Chapter 11 proceedings. The top reported hourly rate is $725 per hour; the magnitude of the fee application is illustrated by the fact that the retired bankruptcy judge chairing the committee reviewing bills for judicial approval is being paid $300 per hour for his services. There were nine recorded instances where attorneys claimed to have worked in excess of 20 hours in a 24-hour period.

I've worked on extraordinary matters (e.g., the threat of a nine-figure default by commodities speculators) which may have justified the use of resources on the scale documented in Enron. Mega-fee applications in mega-bankruptcies, however demonstrate how rapidly professional fees can mount when client and attorney decide--either expressly or through inaction--a limitless sky is the limit. Most clients (mine among them) don't have the luxury of going that route. It's better from their perspective and mine (as I hope to be paid in full on my bills) that a budget tied to realistic expectations on results be in mind from the outset of an engagement and reconsidered as the case goes forward,

Edward R. Wiest
12/11/2002 3:30:00 PM - [Link]

Sad News from Hill & Barlow

Today's Globe reports that the firm of Hill & Barlow will cease operations over the next 90 days.

There are all too many large firm lawyers who conduct proceedings with the seeming intent of making life as difficult as possible for a small firm adversary. That never happened in my dealings with H&B attorneys, who never confused zealous advocacy with the abandonment of professional courtesy, even in the most difficult situations. It's sad to see a firm with such a culture pass into history after 100+ years. I trust that my friends from that office will carry that ethic with them wherever they next hang their shingles

Edward R. Wiest
12/09/2002 1:28:49 PM - [Link]