Sunday, May 3, 2009

Brian Lafferty Needs a Muzzle

As an attorney, I cordially despise the vast majority of legal thrillers or dramas.  The utter lack or realism really drives me bats.   One of the few exceptions was the first season of show Murder One. In the pilot, the lead character attorney tells his client, "What you don't understand, Richard, is that in what you are involved in now, facts are weapons.  I can be the best lawyer in the world, but if I go into court unarmed, I'll get my ass kicked."

I am reminded of this every time I see Brian Lafferty publish yet another internet post on Ms. Polgar.  Frankly, I don't see Lafferty's comments as defamatory, which is not to say that they aren't childish, pointless, and reckless.  Already, his post lawsuit comments have been cited in court filings as evidence against him.  

Brian seems confident that his postings are within the bounds of the law.  Fine, but, others might disagree, and, ultimately, his fate may come down to whether 6 folks in Lubbock think he stayed on the right side of the line.  Polgar's best chance of winning this lawsuit, IMHO, is to portray Lafferty as a cyber-stalker.  Which every post, he is helping her paint that picture.  

Now, Brian holds no position with USCF, and I don't think his words can or should be attributed to USCF.  If he were paying his own legal fees, I would say fine, but USCF is paying his legal fees. He is, thus, wasting the membership's money by needlessly complicating his case.

When your opponent is drowning, don't throw them a rope; throw them an anvil.  Brian is throwing ropes, lots of them.  Those ropes may not be enough to save Ms. Polgar's case, but it is a foolish risk to take.

Frankly, USCF's attorneys should order him to stop posting or discussing the case with anyone. If he won't follow their advice, they should withdraw, and let him pay for his own damn defense. If he wants to play with fire, let him do it on his own dime. 

2 comments:

  1. That's something a lot of us have been saying since early 2007...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed, Wick. Were I BL's counsel, this would have stopped or I would have withdrawn some time ago.

    But for his conduct and the conduct of other non-Board defendants, I would think Polgar's case was objectively baseless. Thanks to the conduct, it's only subjectively baseless.

    ReplyDelete