The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D retained P to bring a securities fraud claim against Prudential-Bache, Inc. Three years later, in the fall of 1985, P was contacted by an F.B.I. agent to whom D previously had complained about his investment losses at Prudential-Bache. The agent asked P whether the stocks at issue were completely worthless. P responded that D had purchased the stocks for roughly $120,000 and later had sold them for approximately $15,000. P informed the agent that technically the stocks were not worthless. D learned of this conversation, and became enraged, and accused P of deliberately dissuading the F.B.I. from investigating the matter. D discharged P as his counsel. Seeking to ensure that he ultimately would be compensated for his services, P refused to return the case files to D until the latter agreed to deposit the proceeds of any future judgment or settlement with the court pending resolution of the attorney's fees issue. D would not agree, and P secured an order from the district court which provided that any funds recovered would be placed in escrow and that the fee dispute would be arbitrated. P then made the case files available to D and his new counsel. D filed a complaint with the state bar and wrote letters to various private attorneys, federal judges, F.B.I. agents, federal and state prosecutors, newspapers, and television stations in the Philadelphia area alleging that P: (1) had 'thrown' D's case; (2) had deliberately destroyed certain documents related to the case; (3) had used drugs and was a member of the highly publicized 'Yuppie Drug Ring' organized by Philadelphia dentist Lawrence Lavin; (4) was connected to organized crime; and (5) had committed arson on his own car. P demanded a retraction, but D refused. The state bar complaint was dismissed and D sent a total of at least 160 separate letters to 60 different individuals or entities. P sued for libel. The court eventually entered a default judgment on the issue of liability against D for failure to comply with discovery. Things stopped for two years but resumed again. P sued against in libel. The court directed a verdict for P at the close of P's case -- i.e., without hearing D's defense on the issue of liability. The jury ultimately awarded P $100,000 in compensatory and $38,000 in punitive damages, and the district court entered judgment accordingly on April 10, 1990. The court simultaneously entered a permanent injunction, prohibiting D from making further statements about P of the type adjudged libelous, and ordering him to write letters of retraction to all persons who had received prior libelous communications. D's post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial were denied. D appealed. D was the subject of numerous contempt orders related to the enforcement of the injunction and court orders.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.