Judge Who Won $3.4 Million After Being
Libeled by Reporter Gives Up Bench

By Denise Lavoie
The Associated Press
New York Lawyer
August 21, 2008

BOSTON (AP) — A judge who sent threatening letters to the Boston Herald's publisher after winning a $2 million libel award will not work as a judge again in Massachusetts, under a court order announced Wednesday.

Judge Ernest Murphy and the state Commission on Judicial Conduct have agreed Murphy is "permanently disabled" from performing his judicial duties and that he would step down, according to the order from the state Supreme Judicial Court,

Murphy has said the libel case with the Herald took a severe physical and emotional toll on him, and that he suffers from post-traumatic stress.

The case began in 2002, after the Herald published a series of stories depicting Murphy as soft on crime. Several quoted Murphy as saying a young rape victim should "Get over it."

Murphy denied making the comment. He sued the Herald, and in 2005, a jury found the newspaper had libeled him and awarded him $2 million.

The agreement announced Wednesday came after the Commission on Judicial Conduct initiated a complaint against Murphy in October, alleging that he "suffers from physical and/or mental disabilities that affect his performance."

The complaint and most of the documents related to it were sealed by the court because they contain personal medical information about Murphy.

Murphy's attorney, Michael Mone, said he was prohibited from commenting on the agreement. Thomas Butters, another attorney who represented Murphy, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Howard Neff, a staff attorney for the commission, would not comment on details of the complaint, but said the court accepted the agreement and "ordered that Judge Murphy shall not sit again as a judge in Massachusetts."

Separately, the Supreme Judicial Court is still weighing whether to impose on Murphy the commission's recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay, $25,000 fine and public censure for using court letterhead to write a threatening letter to the Herald's publisher, Patrick Purcell.

Under the agreement announced Wednesday, Murphy will continue to receive his judicial pay for up to four months. During that period, he must use any accrued vacation and sick time.

But the court rejected Murphy's request that he remain on paid administrative leave until he retires or the governor grants him a disability pension. The court noted that it does not make decisions about pensions.

Murphy could seek a disability pension through the governor or the state retirement board.

A spokeswoman for the newspaper, Gwen Gage, declined comment citing the ongoing case before the SJC.

Two days after he won the libel award from the Herald, Murphy sent the publisher a letter telling him to bring a check for $3.26 million to a private meeting. A separate single-page postscript warned Purcell that showing anyone the letter would be "a BIG mistake."

In the second letter, Murphy told Purcell he had "ZERO chance" of reversing the jury's verdict on appeal.

Murphy said he wrote the letters in an attempt to persuade the Herald not to appeal the jury's verdict.

Last year, the Herald paid Murphy $3.4 million, including $1.4 million in interest.

NY Judge Sues Manhattan Attorney,
 Daily News for $10 Million

By Noeleen G. Walder
New York Lawyer
May 5, 2008

A Brooklyn judge has filed an unusual $10 million defamation suit against attorney Ravi Batra and the New York Daily News.

The suit, Martin v. Daily News, 100053/08, filed earlier this year in Manhattan Supreme Court by Justice Larry D. Martin, alleges that Mr. Batra was the source of two Daily News columns and related blog postings falsely accusing the judge of improperly presiding over a case involving a lawyer who had defended him before the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Justice Martin maintains that Mr. Batra "requested and urged" Daily News columnist Errol Louis to publish "defamatory statements" about him. He claims the articles were "outrageous, grossly irresponsible, malicious and evinced a complete and utter indifference" to his "rights and reputation."

Both Mr. Batra and the Daily News have filed motions to dismiss.

On Jan. 28, 2007, Mr. Louis wrote that the "complicated world of judicial corruption in Brooklyn - a snakepit filled with bribery and back-room political deals" - was on the verge of being "blown wide open."

He cited an action brought by Mr. Batra, relating to Singer v. Riskin, 015812/01, an ongoing multimillion dollar real estate dispute between Mr. Batra's clients, Martin and Grace Riskin, and Ted Singer. That dispute has spawned 11 lawsuits.

In November 2006, Mr. Batra filed Riskin v. Karp, 34131/06, on behalf of his clients against attorney Jerome M. Karp. The suit alleges Mr. Karp represented Mr. Singer "in secret" in Riskin v. Belinda, 048555/98, a mortgage foreclosure action and offshoot of Singer v. Riskin.

Mr. Batra alleged that Mr. Karp's failure to disclose his representation of Mr. Singer in Belinda, over which Justice Martin presided, created an undisclosed conflict since Mr. Karp had served as the judge's attorney before the judicial conduct commission.

The commission, in a determination issued in December 2001 and modified in June 2002, admonished Justice Martin for sending ex parte letters seeking favorable consideration on behalf of defendants awaiting sentencing in other courts.

Mr. Batra alleged in Riskin v. Karp that Mr. Karp's representation of Justice Martin during 2000 and 2001 rendered Mr. Karp unable to act as Mr. Singer's undisclosed attorney from July 25, 2000, to "the present time."

Mr. Batra maintained that this representation violated the "core holding" of Matter of Huttner 2, a 2005 decision in which the judicial conduct commission censured Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Richard D. Huttner.

Mr. Karp represented Justice Huttner in that matter, in which the judge was faulted for failing to disclose his "close social relationship" with Mr. Batra in the Cypress Hill Cemetery litigation, which was pending before him. The judge, who often dined and socialized with Mr. Batra, had appointed Mr. Batra as fiduciary in 11 matters and as counsel to receiver in Cypress Hill.

Nancy Ledy-Gurren of Ledy-Gurren Bass & Siff, who represents Mr. Karp in Riskin v. Karp, said in an e-mail last week that Mr. Batra's case against her client is "frivolous and substantively without any merit."

She wrote that Mr. Karp represented Justice Martin in a single matter, beginning in late 2000 and ending in August 2002. She added that Mr. Karp does not have and has never had a social relationship with Justice Martin.

She said Mr. Karp's involvement in Belinda, over which Justice Martin presided, was limited to a single letter he wrote at the request of Mr. Singer, who wanted to intervene in the litigation. She said Mr. Karp was "a third party respected by both sides, to try and get settlement talks started."

Nothing came of the letter, and "there was no further connection or knowledge of the controversy on Mr. Karp's part," Ms. Ledy-Gurren wrote.

Stuart A. Blander of Heller, Horowitz & Feit, who represents Justice Martin in his libel action, said that Mr. Singer withdrew his motion to intervene in the Belinda action shortly after making the request. At that point, he said that Justice Martin had not retained Mr. Karp for the judicial conduct matter and had no attorney-client relationship with him.

He said that Mr. Singer's only current connection with the Belinda foreclosure action related to a "lingering" sanctions motion that Mr. Batra brought on behalf of Mr. Riskin.

Despite Mr. Batra's allegations of a conflict, no formal motion was made for Justice Martin to recuse himself in Belinda, although the judge did deny an oral application for recusal made in 2005, Mr. Blander said.

Citing Mr. Batra's Riskin v. Karp lawsuit, Mr. Louis wrote in his January 2007 column that Mr. Karp gave "legal advice" to Mr. Singer without disclosing that he had "once represented Supreme Court Justice Larry Martin, the judge hearing the multimillion-dollar case."

The column later stated that Mr. Karp's representation of Mr. Singer and the judge occurred "simultaneously."

On Feb. 8, 2007, in a follow-up Daily News piece, Mr. Louis wrote that Justice Martin is "in the hot seat again" for allegedly overseeing a case involving his "personal lawyer."

In his February column, Mr. Louis mistakenly referred to Riskin v. Belinda as Singer v. Riskin.

According to Mr. Blander, Justice Martin's attorney, the judge "had nothing to do with Singer v. Riskin," which is before Brooklyn Judge Michael A. Ambrosio. Justice Martin was assigned to the smaller foreclosure action Riskin v. Belinda, Mr. Blander said.

When readers pointed out Mr. Louis' error on the newspaper's blog, "The Daily Politics," he clarified the case caption but stuck by his claim that the judge should have recused himself from Belinda.

"It's clear as a bell and you know it," Mr. Louis wrote.

Mr. Batra then suggested in a related blog posting that skeptics should take a trip to the Brooklyn courthouse, if they had doubts about the accuracy of Mr. Louis' February column. Mr. Batra contended that he had an obligation to remedy readers' "sloppy" misconceptions, particularly where "fraud upon the court is afoot!"

In his suit against the Daily News, Mr. Louis and Mr. Batra, Justice Martin maintains that the articles and blog postings got the facts wrong on a number of counts.

The judge says that he never presided over Singer v. Riskin, and argues that Mr. Karp was not an attorney of record in the proceeding.

Justice Martin also contends the newspaper and blog posts gave readers the false impression that Mr. Karp currently represented the judge, when he had not been his attorney for "more than five years."

Justice Martin pegs Mr. Batra as the "source" of the misinformation. He claims Mr. Louis' columns, which were "widely read and discussed by the public," the "legal community" at large, family and friends, including his church group, "brought him into public scandal and disrepute."

In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Batra denies he provided the Daily News with a copy of his lawsuit against Mr. Karp. But he adds that even if he did, his alleged statements, made in his "capacity" as the Riskins' attorney, are protected under Civil Rights Law §74, which grants absolute immunity from civil suit for the publication of "a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding."

"[T]here is universal agreement that the columns are based upon the verified complaint previously filed in Riskin v. Karp - and are substantially accurate portrayals of the same," Mr. Batra claims in an affidavit filed in support of his motion to dismiss.

Mr. Batra also claims his statements could not have defamed Justice Martin, since they "are not even about the plaintiff - but about Jerome Karp." Mr. Batra has requested attorney's fees and sanctions against Justice Martin and his counsel.

In papers filed with the court, the Daily News admits Mr. Louis erred in his Feb. 8, 2007, column when he identified Justice Martin as the presiding judge in Singer v. Riskin, instead of Riskin v. Belinda.

But the newspaper argues that the fair reporting privilege renders it immune from suit, since Mr. Louis "substantially stated the substance" of Mr. Batra's complaint against Mr. Karp.

The Daily News also argues that Mr. Louis' pieces amounted to "non-actionable" opinions.

Anne B. Carroll, deputy general counsel for the New York Daily News, declined to comment on pending litigation.

Mr. Blander said in an interview that Justice Martin learned of Mr. Batra's claim that Mr. Karp was secretly representing Mr. Singer in Riskin v. Belinda for the first time in 2005, when Mr. Batra sent a letter to then-Administrative Justice Neil J. Firetog raising the issue.

Mr. Blander said that "any sitting judge values very, very highly his reputation for honesty and for fairness" and that the "entire thrust of the [Daily News] columns was that Justice Martin wasn't doing what he was supposed to do."

In an interview, Mr. Batra called Justice Martin's pending action "a frivolous lawsuit [that] ill serves one who sits on the noble bench."

The suit is before Supreme Court Justice Martin J. Schulman.

Defamation Suit Settled;
Kane County Paper to
 Publish Apology to Illinois Chief Justice

Chicago Tribune
October 12, 2007 Friday
By Russell Working

The Kane County Chronicle has agreed to apologize for publishing defamatory statements about Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas and to pay a reduced damage award to settle a case playing out in state and federal courts.

In a joint statement given to the Tribune Thursday, Thomas affirmed the importance of a free press and equal treatment of all under a court system he heads -- issues that the paper insisted were at stake.

The statement was attributed to Thomas and Tom Shaw, the Chronicle's president and chief executive officer, and included the name of former columnist Bill Page. His allegations in 2003 of high court politicking by Thomas were found by a jury to be false and defamatory.

Page, in a phone interview from Florida where he now lives, said he would not have agreed to a settlement and stands by his work.

"I will never back down from what I wrote," Page said. "It was based on what I had from confidential sources."

Attorneys for both sides declined to disclose the settlement sum, but Page said the paper agreed to pay $3 million in order to halt court battles that could drag on for years and cost millions.

Thomas had been awarded $4 million by the trial judge, who had reduced the jury's original award of $7 million in November, saying it "shocks this judicial conscience."

But in an era when judges have amassed a winning record when suing newspapers, the deal seems to be a step down for a paper that had cast its fight as a free-press battle and civil rights issue, arguing in a federal lawsuit this year that it was at a disadvantage in a state judicial system headed by Thomas.

Since 1986, judges have won eight of 11 cases in which they have sued news media, according to the Media Law Resource Center in New York. Dozens of other cases brought by judges were dismissed before trial, said center staff attorney David Heller.

The statement describing the settlement, which will appear in Friday's editions of the Chronicle, notes that a jury found two columns by Page "falsely and recklessly" accused Thomas of misconduct in a disciplinary case pending before the high court involving former Kane County State's Atty. Meg Gorecki.

"The newspaper regrets publishing statements that the jury found to be false and in relying on sources who, based on the jury verdict, provided information that was not true regarding Mr. Thomas' role in the Gorecki case," the statement reads. "The Chronicle and Mr. Page apologize to Mr. Thomas."

The agreement came despite a whirlwind of filings by the newspaper that seemed determined to pressure Thomas and highlight the constitutional difficulties of suing and appealing in a court system he heads. The lawyers tried to turn up the heat on Thomas by changing the discussion from the accuracy of the columns to the fairness of the judicial process.

Lawyers for the Chronicle didn't confine themselves merely to their appeal, but also turned to the federal courts to sue 11 judges in the Illinois state system, ranging from Cook County Circuit Court Judge Donald O'Brien, the trial judge, to Thomas and other Supreme Court justices.

Bruce Brown, a Washington-based media attorney representing the Chronicle, said he was pleased the paper had raised broader issues in the case.

"It may persuade the next judge who comes along who has a complaint with news coverage that the better approach may be to bring that complaint to the public or bring that complaint to the publisher of the newspaper rather than bringing it to the court system that the judges control," Brown said.

But Joe Power, Thomas' Chicago-based attorney, said the other issues raised by the Chronicle were irrelevant after the chief justice's win before a Kane County jury.

"It took a lot of courage on Justice Thomas' part, because if the jury had felt that we just did meet our burden of proof, which was clear and convincing evidence, we could have lost the case, even though what was in the articles was not true," Power said.

Chronicle lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to reverse motions it made assigning the case, because many of the justices appeared as Thomas' witnesses. The Chronicle lawyers then ridiculed the justices' assertion that they lacked a quorum to consider the motion.

Most recently, the Chronicle filed a motion asking the judge to set aside the verdict under a new law passed in August that broadly immunizes citizens and journalists when criticizing officials. The statute limits what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits.

Thomas, a former kicker for the Chicago Bears, sued Page, the Chronicle, Shaw Suburban Media Group and managing editor Greg Rivara over the columns published in 2003. Thomas, 55, of Wheaton did not return calls seeking comment.

The Chronicle is a 14,000-circulation daily paper that mostly serves the far western suburbs of St. Charles, Geneva and Batavia. Rivara has left the newspaper, which no longer publishes Page's work.

- - -

Judges vs. the media

Juries have a reputation of hearing lawsuits brought by judges with sympathetic ears. In the last two decades, judges have won eight of 11 cases in which they have sued the media.

Thomas vs. Page

(Illinois, 2006-07)

THE CASE: Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas sued Kane County Chronicle columnist Bill Page over columns that criticized the judge's motives in meting out suspension to an attorney.

REPORTED AWARD: $3 million

Verdict: Judge

Murphy vs. Boston Herald

(Massachusetts, 2005)

THE CASE: Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy sued over the content of a front-page story headlined, "Murphy's law: Lenient judge frees dangerous criminals."

FINAL AWARD: $2 million

Verdict: Judge

Hosemann vs. Loyacono

(Mississippi, 2003)

THE CASE: County Court Judge H. Gerald Hosemann sued the Vicksburg Post over a report that the judge was arrested for allegedly beating up his former court reporter. Hosemann later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge.

FINAL AWARD: None

Verdict: Media

Sweeny vs. New York Times Co.

(Ohio, 2003)

THE CASE: Ohio Supreme Court Justice Francis Sweeny sued over a story criticizing his decision not to recuse himself in a civil case in which he had prior involvement.

FINAL AWARD: None

Verdict: Media

Merriweather vs. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.

(Pennsylvannia, 2000)

THE CASE: Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Ronald B. Merriweather alleged that a Philadelphia Daily News story implied he participated in fixing a case.

FINAL AWARD: None

Verdict: Judge

Vislosky vs. Courier Times Inc.

(Pennsylvannia, 2000)

THE CASE: District Justice Dorothy Vislosky sued the Bucks County Courier Times over a story and editorials that discussed an investigation into decisions made by Vislosky and another judge.

FINAL AWARD: None

Verdict: Media

Bentley vs. Bunton

(Texas, 1997)

THE CASE: Texas District Judge Bascom Bentley III sued local public access cable talk show hosts for repeatedly accusing the judge of being corrupt.

FINAL AWARD: $1.3 million

Verdict: Judge

Lewis vs. News Press & Gazette Co.

(Missouri, 1992)

THE CASE: State Circuit Judge Kenneth Lewis alleged that a story implied he violated a criminal statue by constructing barriers around the road on his farm.

FINAL AWARD: $35,000

Verdict: Judge

McDermott vs. Biddle

(Pennsylvannia, 1990)

THE CASE: State Supreme Court Justice James T. McDermott claimed that stories falsely suggested that his votes in two cases were improperly influenced by campaign contributions and friendships and that he engaged in nepotism.

FINAL AWARD: Settled for costs

Verdict: Judge

Hinerman vs. Daily Gazette Co. Inc.

(West Virginia, 1990)

THE CASE: Municipal Court Judge Raymond Hinerman sued the Charleston Gazette over an editorial that criticized his work as a lawyer for a mine workers union.

FINAL AWARD: $300,000

Verdict: Judge

DiSalle vs. Pittsburgh Post Gazette

(Pennsylvannia, 1986)

THE CASE: State Commonwealth Court Judge Richard DiSalle sued over a story that reported that he had prepared a fraudulent will years earlier when he was a private attorney.

FINAL AWARD: $2.2 million

Verdict: Judge

Source: Media Law Resource Center

Chicago Tribune

                 Judge Wins $7 Million in Libel Trial
      Chief Justice Says Kane Paper Hurt His Job Prospects

By James Kimberly
Chicago Tribune
November 15, 2006

A Kane County jury Tuesday decided a small local newspaper should pay $7 million to the Illinois Supreme Court's chief justice for defaming him in two columns published three years ago.

Justice Robert Thomas cried and hugged his attorneys as Judge Donald J. O'Brien read the verdict Tuesday afternoon. Thomas, 54, of Wheaton shook hands and embraced jurors leaving the wood-paneled courtroom in the historic courthouse in downtown Geneva.

"I thank God," Thomas told reporters. "I thank the jury for listening and paying attention. The truth prevailed."

The verdict was unusual, partly because of the amount awarded and partly because the plaintiff was a sitting judge, said Bruce D. Brown, an attorney who is representing the Boston Herald in its appeal of a $2 million libel judgment awarded last year to a Massachusetts state court judge.

"If you were to look at the range of libel judgments, it's certainly on the high end," Brown said.

The newspaper found to be at fault, the Kane County Chronicle, is a daily paper owned by the Shaw Newspaper Group. It circulates mostly in St. Charles, Geneva and Batavia. Its circulation is about 14,000, down from 38,000 in 2003.

Brown said the U.S. Supreme Court set the libel standard very high for public officials: A plaintiff must prove the newspaper knew it was publishing false information or had serious doubts about its veracity. "Public officials are often successful in the courtroom at creating sympathy for the situation they found themselves in, but because of the substantial constitutional protections enjoyed by the press, approximately 70 percent of those verdicts have been overturned," Brown said.

Attorney Stephen Rosenfeld, who defended the Chronicle and its former columnist, Bill Page, said the verdict would be challenged in post-trial motions and likely on appeal.

"I think it does have a chilling effect on the 1st Amendment and the press' ability to criticize public officials, especially elected officials," Rosenfeld said.

The appeal could raise a host of legal issues because all but two of the sitting Illinois Supreme Court justices testified during the two-week trial, Rosenfeld said.

Ex-columnist disappointed

Page, 58, a former restaurant owner-turned-freelance publicist and writer, said he was disappointed with the verdict.

"Obviously this has been an emotional time for everybody," said Page, who was a part-time contributor to the Chronicle until earlier this year, when he moved to Gainesville, Fla.

The columns at issue accused Thomas of injecting politics into a case before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Page testified that confidential sources told him that Thomas pushed for a severe punishment of former Kane County State's Atty. Meg Gorecki in a disciplinary case but backed off after local Republican leaders agreed to support a judicial candidate he favored in an upcoming election.

But Page never revealed the sources of his information, and at the trial the newspaper could not produce a single witness to support the accusations.

Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended Gorecki's law license for four months because she left an answering machine message for a friend suggesting a county government job could be obtained in exchange for political donations to a county official. An investigation uncovered no evidence of a jobs-for-campaign donations scheme. Page wrote that Thomas was "out for blood" in the Gorecki case and pushed for a lengthy suspension or disbarment until local politicians supported his candidate.

Thomas said the columns were false and sued over two of them, contending his reputation had been damaged so severely that his future earning potential was diminished.

Thomas' attorney, Joseph Power, asked the jury to award Thomas $17 million.

"All they had to do was print some sort of retraction," Power said.

Jurors decided quickly.

The jury sided with Thomas on every count. After the trial, several jurors told reporters that they quickly determined that the columns published May 20, 2003, and Nov. 25, 2003, were false and published with malice.

After four hours of deliberations Monday night, jurors spent 4 1/2 hours Tuesday deciding how much money to award Thomas. They found he should receive $1 million for lost potential future earnings, $1 million for the public humiliation he suffered, and $5 million for the damage done to his professional and personal reputations.
"To have your integrity questioned in front of your family and the world, that was the most important part," said juror Ken Sotera, 46, of St. Charles.

Juror Kelly Groves, 26, of Aurora, said the jury blamed the Chronicle more than Page because the newspaper should have done more to verify the information.

"We all understand and respect confidential sources," Groves said. "We just feel if they would have done a little work they should have been able to substantiate this without confidential sources."

Power said Page's actions helped him prove the case.

Power introduced into evidence an e-mail that Page sent to a spokesman for the Illinois Supreme Court that warned of a "nightmare of bad publicity" for the court if Thomas were allowed to influence deliberations in the Gorecki case. Power said the e-mail was a threat. Page said it was an innocuous attempt to get someone from the court to speak with him about the case.

Tribune staff reporter Sara Olkon contributed to this reporter

Jury Finds That Columnist Acted With Malice
and Awards Judge $7 Million

By Katharine Q. Seelye
The New York Times
November 15, 2006

GENEVA, Ill., Nov. 14 — In a case that media lawyers say has broad implications for press freedoms, a jury here found Tuesday that a newspaper columnist falsely wrote in 2003 that the chief justice of the Illinois State Supreme Court had traded his vote for a political favor, and had acted with malice.

The chief justice, Robert R. Thomas, brought the case against Bill Page, a former columnist for The Kane County Chronicle, a 14,000-circulation daily here, about 40 miles west of Chicago.

The jury awarded Justice Thomas $7 million, with $5 million for damaging his reputation, $1 million for future economic losses and $1 million for humiliation. It is the second-largest award in the county’s history, after a $21 million medical malpractice award this year, said F. Keith Brown, a circuit judge here.

The justice’s lawyers said that Mr. Page had essentially accused him of official misconduct, a felony, when he wrote that he had traded his vote on a disciplinary case in exchange for political support for his favored candidate in a local judicial race.

"This sends a message to renegade journalists that this conduct will not be tolerated," said Joseph A. Power Jr., a lawyer for Justice Thomas.

The jury deliberated for nine hours. Ken Sotern, 46, a juror and merchandising manager, said that the jury wanted to send a message to the news media "to a degree," but that its main concern was to try to restore Justice Thomas’s reputation.

The newspaper’s lawyers said they were handicapped because the trial judge did not allow them to argue that as a columnist, Mr. Page was not held to the standards of a reporter. They said Mr. Page accurately reported information from his unidentified sources.

The lawyers said the verdict would have a "chilling effect" on coverage of public officials and could embolden other judges to file suit, particularly since the award was high.

Steve Rosenfeld, part of the defense team, said the verdict would most likely be appealed. But he said it would be tricky because Mr. Thomas, 54, a former place-kicker for the Chicago Bears, oversaw all judges, including the trial judge, Donald J. O’Brien Jr., who was brought in from Cook County, and the State Supreme Court justices, most of whom took the stand on his behalf.

The case was also significant because it prompted an appellate court to establish a judicial privilege in Illinois, allowing deliberations to be kept private, much like doctor-patient discussions.

Newspapers are sued frequently, but it is unusual for a judge to sue a newspaper. Of 397 complaints filed against the news media last year, judges and magistrates brought 25 of them, or 6 percent, according to the Media Law Resource Center.

Sandra Baron, executive director of the center, said it was not clear if such cases were increasing, but she said the verdict made the press more vulnerable while it is under attack "from almost every aspect of society" and the industry is in some economic turmoil.

"In the short run it looks as if the judge has vindicated his reputation," Ms. Baron said. "But in the long run, society will pay for his vindication when the media is reluctant to criticize those in high office in the wake of lengthy, bitter, expensive trials."

It is peculiar for a judge sue a newspaper, said Cameron Stracher, a co-director of the law and journalism program at New York University Law School, because judges are supposed to protect free speech.

"The courts were the last protector," Mr. Stracher said, "and now even the courts are suing."

The Kane County Chronicle’s lawyers said that when a state’s highest-ranking judge brought the case, he could wield as much influence as if he were sitting on the bench. Steven P. Mandell, a defense lawyer, said that most of the witnesses were beholden to the justice and that the defense had trouble getting witnesses and experts.

Jurors said that Justice Thomas’s status made the case somewhat difficult but that they put it aside. "He’s a guy just like anyone else," said one juror, Kelly Groves, 26, who deals with worker compensation claims.

Justice Thomas’s lawyers said it was important for judges to be able to answer their critics. They said they understood that the suit would bring Mr. Page’s columns to the attention of far more people than had seen them originally.

Mr. Power said the accusation of a felony damaged Mr. Thomas’s reputation and could impede him in trying to join a prestigious law firm or being appointed to the United States Supreme Court. He said that though few people had seen the original columns, they could be converted into attack advertisements by anyone out to get Justice Thomas.

Jurors said they were not bothered that Mr. Page used unidentified sources, but wished there had been some confirmation of what they said. Without that, and without seeking a response from the justice before publication, the jurors said, the newspaper appeared to act recklessly.

Rick Shaw, 50, a juror and an engineering manager, said of the charges of vote-trading, "We were O.K. with confidential sources, but if it was so widespread, someone should have confirmed the facts."

Judge's Lawsuit Heading for Jury
Writer, Chief Justice Fight for Reputations
 

By Russell Working
Chicago Tribune
November 12, 2006

As jurors sit down this week to decide a defamation case brought by Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Thomas, they can choose from a couple of theories.

Lawyers for Thomas, the former Bears placekicker who now heads the state's judiciary, cast the case as a struggle to clear their client's name of malicious smears they suggest could cripple his career.

Lawyers for the Kane County Chronicle, former columnist Bill Page and other defendants say it's about free speech, and an elected official's attempt to quash legitimate expression of opinion.

It's a rarity for a sitting Supreme Court justice to appear as a plaintiff in a civil suit. And for two weeks in a Geneva courthouse, spectators have been treated to judicial curiosities: a string of justices on the witness stand, where attorneys addressed them "your honor"; and lawyers from the Illinois attorney general's office representing the judge-witnesses, posing their own objections to questioning.

But behind the rhetoric and the judicial star power, the case has often seemed to boil down to a simpler, time-tested plot line: two men in an all-out fight for their reputations.

In 2003, Page wrote three columns claiming Thomas was biased against former Kane County State's Atty. Meg Gorecki, who faced disciplinary action before the state Supreme Court. Page wrote that Thomas wanted Gorecki disbarred, but then backed off in exchange for a political favor.

For Thomas, the accusations of misconduct--which he says would amount to a crime--were too serious to be ignored.

"A judge's job description is to be fair," he said on the witness stand. "And Bill Page said I can't be fair. He's taken away my integrity and my good name, and I'm here to get it back."

Thomas' attorneys, meanwhile, have accused the former columnist of threatening a state official, hiding a conflict of interest involving his daughter, a former intern for Gorecki, and failing to get Thomas' side of the story before publishing damaging information.

Page denies the threat and dismisses suggestions that his daughter's work represented a conflict of interest. He also insists he had reason to trust his unnamed sources.

"The individuals who were my confidential sources were in a position to give me the information," Page testified, "and I had no reason to be concerned about their accuracy and truthfulness."

Thomas' suit also names Chronicle Managing Editor Greg Rivara and Shaw Newspapers, which owns the Chronicle.

The two sides arm-wrestled until just before the trial started over whether Page should reveal his sources. Illinois law protects reporters from revealing sources but allows courts to override the privilege in libel cases.

Last month Donald J. O'Brien, a Cook County Circuit Court judge who took the case when Kane County judges recused themselves, ordered Page to disclose his sources.

But because that order could have sparked a long appeal, both sides agreed that Thomas would not seek the sources, as long as Page didn't testify as to the sources' credibility.

Instead, the defense sought to highlight Page's role as an opinion columnist, saying it is commonplace for pundits to discuss upcoming court decisions. The newspaper's attorneys have said that the columnist had reason to believe the accusations fit a longer pattern of political dealings by the justice.

And the defense argued throughout the trial that the columns didn't hurt the career of Thomas, who became chief justice after their publication.

Thomas' team, meanwhile, called an expert who testified it could take up to $7.7 million to make up for the judge's lost earnings if the columns damage his future employment prospects.

Again and again, the case has returned to the reputations of the two men, each side trying to establish a dark pattern in the other's behavior.

In addition to the columns, the plaintiffs introduced into evidence an e-mail that Page sent to the Supreme Court's press office, promising a "nightmare of bad publicity" if Thomas were allowed to influence the court's decision.

Page made other threats, before the case reached the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs alleged. James J. Grogan, chief counsel for the state commission that investigates lawyer misconduct, testified that Page phoned him, threatening to "destroy" and "ruin" him after the agency recommended a temporary suspension of Gorecki's law license in 2002.

Page flatly denied that he ever threatened Grogan.

The defense painted Thomas as a politician who committed cronyism by elevating the wife of a campaign donor to a judgeship.

A Thomas attorney said there was no reason he should bypass a qualified judge just because her husband was a supporter.

Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday.
 

Writer Defends Columns in Justice Defamation Case

By Russell Working
Chicago Tribune
November 2, 2006

A newspaper writer disputed Thursday allegations of carelessness and bias in an Illinois Supreme Court chief justice's defamation suit but found himself fighting a new accusation that he threatened to "ruin" an official with a state agency involved in an attorney discipline case.

Bill Page, a former columnist for the Kane County Chronicle who is being sued by Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas, said in a Geneva court that he had reliable and confidential sources when he wrote that Thomas had traded a vote for political favor in a 2003 case involving then-Kane County State's Atty. Meg Gorecki.

But James J. Grogan, chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, a state agency that investigates attorney misconduct, told jurors that Page phoned to threaten him after the agency recommended a temporary suspension of Gorecki's law license in 2002.

Grogan said Page identified himself in the call and threatened to "ruin" the attorney. "So finally I said to him, 'Do you have a question for me?'" Grogan said. "And he said he was going to destroy me."

Page has denied the threat and his lawyers disputed Grogan's reliability, noting he had never talked to Page before or after the alleged call and wouldn't have known the columnist's voice.

"So you have no way of verifying that that was Mr. Page, do you?" said Brendan Healey, a lawyer for Page and the newspaper.

Grogan acknowledged that this was true.

Thomas, who was a justice in 2003, is seeking to prove Page and the newspaper defamed him. The suit centers on three opinion pieces Page wrote about Gorecki, who admitted leaving an answering-machine message suggesting that someone could get a job by making a donation to a county official.

When an ARDC hearing panel considered the matter, it recommended a six-month suspension of Gorecki's law license, while the commission's review board recommended that Gorecki be suspended for two months.

The Supreme Court was asked in 2003 to review the suspension and unanimously agreed to four months. But Page wrote that Thomas had favored disbarment but changed his mind after back-door deals to back a judicial candidate he favored—an accusation Thomas denies.

Under questioning from his lawyer, Stephen Rosenfeld, Page backed away from a previous assertion that he had not tried to contact anyone from the Supreme Court before the first column ran in May 2003. He said Thursday he had construed the question to relate narrowly to the justices.
In fact, he said, "I was calling the press office," he said, adding that no one had returned his calls.

Page contended his columns were well-sourced. "I had confidential sources that provided me with information that I believed was proven to be accurate," he said.

Guided by his lawyer, Page downplayed an e-mail to the court press office promising a "nightmare of bad publicity" if Thomas is allowed to influence the court's decision. He said he was upset at the time because no one was responding to his phone calls.

Still, Page insisted, he wanted the court's side. Rosenfeld highlighted a phrase in the e-mail in which Page said "I'm writing in the hopes of getting some comment."

Also on Thursday, Thomas' lawyers called to the stand Charles M. Linke, an economist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in an attempt to establish that the Chronicle stories caused Thomas to suffer long-term financial damage in his job prospects.

Page's attorneys have suggested that the prosecution's assumptions about Thomas' career possibilities are inflated, noting that Page's columns didn't prevent the judge from becoming a chief justice.

The trial in a Kane County courtroom has seen testimony from Gorecki, state Supreme Court justices and the managing editor of the Chronicle. The trial continues Monday.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-061102thomas-page,1,6046801.story

Defamation Trial of Judge V. Newspaper Writer Starts

By Matt Hanley
The Courier News
October 27, 2006

[Index to Articles]