NY Times Article on Food Critic being sued for libel

In this Thursdays NY Times, a restaurant in Bala Cynwood, PA has sued a Philadelphia Inquirer food critic- becasue of his slamming the strip steak
from the NY Times:
It praised the crab cake at Chops restaurant in Bala Cynwyd, Pa., but said the meal there over all “was expensive and disappointing, from the soggy and sour chopped salad to a miserably tough and fatty strip steak.”
link to article,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/dining/07lega.html?th&emc=th
In light of this article- do lth.ers, need to "lawyer-up" before they write anything negative, or not praisworthy?

Just because a lawsuit is filed, doesn't mean it's meritorious or will be successful at trial, if the judge allows it to get to trial. This one certainly won't.

LaBan is a good critic and actually has some culinary training (cooking school in France, as I recall, and maybe some kitchen experience, as well). As befits his background, his reviews of French/Italian places are more reliable than those of more "ethnic" cuisine -- although which major newspaper food critic is that not true of? Regardless, his column is one of the few things that are still worth reading in what was once a good paper.

This lawsuit is, needless to say, ludicrous.

(I guess this should be in "Other Culinary Chat", by the way.)

Ludicrous is right.

If a restaurant can sue a critic for a bad review then a producer/theater can sue a critic for a pan (where a lot more is at stake), a publisher can sue a book reviewer for a bad review, and Madonna can sue Roger Ebert for a thumbs down. What a wonderful world that would be for lawyers!

jbw wrote:Ludicrous is right.

If a restaurant can sue a critic for a bad review then a producer/theater can sue a critic for a pan (where a lot more is at stake), a publisher can sue a book reviewer for a bad review, and Madonna can sue Roger Ebert for a thumbs down. What a wonderful world that would be for lawyers!

No, actually it wouldn't be, especially for the lawyers who have to defend such dumb suits. The reality is that anyone "can" file a lawsuit in this country. I've had many people (even some clients) who have asked me why the plaintiff was "allowed" to file suit. There's nothing that stops anyone from filing most suits - pay your $200 buck filing fee, draft a complaint (sometimes you need only check off boxes), stand in line, have it filed, serve it, and bingo! You've sued someone. Of course, judges are duty-bound to toss frivolous lawsuits, although that is not done as often as it should. Having said that, I think this lawsuit would be one that a judge would be happy to toss upon motion by the Philadelphia Enquirer.

I'll throw in my two cents here and say I'd be very surprised if this doesn't get tossed. There is a constraint on frivolous lawsuits in federal court (I don't know the state rules back east) which provides as follows:

"By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney...is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law..."

(Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)) The rule also provides for (potentially) stiff sanctions and, once in a while, you even hear about it happening! I'm out of my depth beyond this; I'm not a litigator. But some cases just ain't destined to go anywhere and this sure smells like one.

Gypsy Boy-

You're absolutely right about federal court sanctioning that plaintiff and slapping it with a hefty fine for filing such a frivolous lawsuit. Unfortunately, Plaintiff's attorney apparently anticipated that and filed in the more lenient State Court of Common Pleas.

The lawsuit states that the critic did not try the actual strip steak, but rather a steak sandwich, then implied he had eaten the strip steak. If that is true, he does owe the restaurant (and his readers) some sort of published clarification. I wonder if the restaurant attempted to seek a direct remedy prior to filing the suit.

I am sure the plaintiff doesn't expect to get very far with the suit legally, but it did give them a chance to defend themselves publicly, in the NY Times, no less. However, I think such lawsuits are a PR tool of limited usefulness. If a bunch of restaurants start suing critics, it will no longer make the news, and therefore not be worth the expense.

No matter how frivolous a case may be, said David Snyder, a securities lawyer in Philadelphia who blogs as PhilaFoodie, the prospect of a suit chills at least amateur criticism.

“Unlike Craig LaBan,” Mr. Snyder said in an interview, “I don’t have The Philadelphia Inquirer in my corner who is going to bankroll a First Amendment lawyer. These issues touch a nerve with food bloggers.”

On his blog, Michael Bauer, the restaurant critic for The San Francisco Chronicle, also said he found the legal climate perilous. “As a critic,” he wrote, “I figure I’m always one misplaced adjective away from getting slapped with legal action.”

I know that some lth-ers are Legal Eagles themselves...but the reason I posted this to begin with....was that many "bloggers/Message Board Posters/web commentators" are unprotected, at least in comparison to the "Legal Firepower" that The Philadelphia Inquirer is packing.

Yes, many lawsuits are trivial- but how many of us have the termitity to brush those lawsuits off. You ask most folks how many times that they've been sued, regardless of trivial or Supreme Court issue....and their response is pretty much zero.
I'm not advocating ONLY saying pretty/nice things about a restaurant- but just wanted to add a note of perspective.

Hombre de Acero wrote:

No matter how frivolous a case may be, said David Snyder, a securities lawyer in Philadelphia who blogs as PhilaFoodie, the prospect of a suit chills at least amateur criticism.

“Unlike Craig LaBan,” Mr. Snyder said in an interview, “I don’t have The Philadelphia Inquirer in my corner who is going to bankroll a First Amendment lawyer. These issues touch a nerve with food bloggers.”

On his blog, Michael Bauer, the restaurant critic for The San Francisco Chronicle, also said he found the legal climate perilous. “As a critic,” he wrote, “I figure I’m always one misplaced adjective away from getting slapped with legal action.”

I know that some lth-ers are Legal Eagles themselves...but the reason I posted this to begin with....was that many "bloggers/Message Board Posters/web commentators" are unprotected, at least in comparison to the "Legal Firepower" that The Philadelphia Inquirer is packing.

Yes, many lawsuits are trivial- but how many of us have the termitity to brush those lawsuits off. You ask most folks how many times that they've been sued, regardless of trivial or Supreme Court issue....and their response is pretty much zero.
I'm not advocating ONLY saying pretty/nice things about a restaurant- but just wanted to add a note of perspective.

It sounds like the article is overstating a lot.

It doesn't take a lot of "Legal Firepower" to file a motion to dismiss. Really. The judge may even allow it on oral motion.

Hombre de Acero wrote:Yes, many lawsuits are trivial- but how many of us have the termitity to brush those lawsuits off.

Ah, don't sweat it. I'm sure we could find some people to contribute to a bake sale/charcuterie sale/etc for legal funds if an LTHer were being unjustly sued and funds needed to be raised!

LTH’ers,

The mods were alerted to the particular touchy legal issues in this thread by a good friend of LTH, who happens to be a lawyer. This person is not responsible for the day-to-day legal administration of LTH, but I am. Our friend suggested that this thread may quickly get out of hand with respect to our members speculating about legal outcomes or making uninformed accusations…I agree and I thank the member for the alert. While I admit that prohibiting additional discussion of this matter because it adds nothing of value is a judgment call: that is the call.

In my rather quick review of the facts, there seems to be a rather simple issue of “can” and “may.” As my 6th grade English teacher, Mrs. “Spider Legs” Neeroff used to say when someone asked if they could go to the toilet, “I don’t know, can you?” Yes, anyone with the means CAN murder another person; however, you MAY NOT according to criminal laws. Yes, anyone CAN file a lawsuit; however you MAY NOT file a lawsuit that alleges frivolous claims without being subject to penalties.

On a personal note: In response to the OP’s question, there is no reasonable need for LTH members to “lawyer-up.” This “news” about the lawsuit makes for headlines that sell papers. LTH does not need juicy headlines to sell papers, it does not need to quote marginal-value studies to get folks to tune in and it does not need to engage in fear mongering to prove its policies.

I apologize if that is a rather stern admonishment for what I hope was just the OP’s tongue-in-cheek jab at lawyers and media…but let’s let the joke die here.

Regards,
pdaane