Can you defame a profession? Suppose someone publishes the statement &quot;All lawyers are thieves.&quot; Obviously, this is not true; there most likely are some lawyers who are also thieves, but certainly not all. Would it be possible for any lawyer to sue this person for defamation, either individually or in a class action?
united-states https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/who-can-sue-defamation One of the elements of defamation is that the statement must be &quot;of and concerning&quot; the plaintiff. Accordingly, defamatory statements about a group or class of people generally are not actionable by individual members of that group or class. There are two exceptions to this general rule that exist when: the group or class is so small that the statements are reasonably understood to refer to the individual in question; or the circumstances make it reasonable to conclude that the statement refers particularly to the individual in question. See Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 564A (1977). The article suggests that the cutoff for a &quot;small group&quot; is about 25 people. (They cite an interesting example from 1952: Neiman-Marcus v. Lait, 13 F.R.D. 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1952). A store had a sales staff of 25 male and 382 female employees. The defendant published a book asserting that &quot;most of&quot; the male sales staff were homosexual, which I suppose was per se defamatory in 1952, and that the female staff generally were prostitutes. The court held that the men had been defamed but the women had not.) So since there are more than 25 lawyers in the world, &quot;all lawyers are thieves&quot; would not defame any individual lawyer. I don't believe that class action suits for defamation are permitted at all. I can't currently find a source for this, but I also can't find any report of such a case having been heard.
united-states The rules on what constitutes defamation under US law are fairly straightforward. For a statement to be defamatory, it must be: A statement of fact (not opinion); that is False; and Communicated to at least one other person (the law refers to this as &quot;publication&quot; but it does not mean just being in print, any form of communication will do); and Harmful to someone's reputation, so that people think less of the person because of the statement, or are less inclined to do business with or associate with the person. There are some exceptions to point 4, kinds of statements where harm is assumed. Such statements are called &quot;defamation per se&quot;. But even in such cases evidence of harm is often included in a defamation suit. The exceptions include: Accusing a person of a crime, particularly a serious crime; accusing a person of dishonest business dealings; accusing a person of incompetence in the person's job, trade, or profession; traditionally, accusing a person of having a sexually transmitted disease (this may no longer apply in some jurisdictions); traditionally, accusing a woman of sexual immorality, that is of having sex before marriage or outside of marriage (this also may no longer apply in some jurisdictions). The plaintiff (person bringing the suit) must at least allege (claim) points 1-3, and point 4 unless the claim is for defamation per se. The plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to confine the court of all but point 2, falsity. In addition, (in US law) if the plaintiff is a public official, or a &quot;public figure&quot; then the plaintiff must also allege and prove &quot;actual malice&quot; (an unfortunate term). This means that the plaintiff must show that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Actual malice is usually hard to prove. The actual malice standard derives from the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Prior to that case there was no federal law of defamation, and no constitutional dimension to US defamation cases. A statement of opinion, such as &quot;I think product A is a better value than product B&quot; can never be defamation in US law. Nor can a provably true statement. Nor can a statement that is essentially true, even if it contains minor errors. (None of these are true in all countries.) Some states still maintain the traditional split between libel and slander, with libel being written (or in some places broadcast) defamation, and slander being spoken. In other states the two have been merged into a single action of defamation. When they are separate, libel tends to carry larger damages, and slander may not recognize defamation per se, but require proof of damage to reputation. Some people are said to be &quot;defamation proof&quot; meaning that their reputation is already so bad that nothing can harm it further. Taking care to research facts, particularly negative statements about people, helps avoid defamation in general, and makes proving actual malice much harder. Keeping written records of such research is also a good practice. It is good if negative statements are supported by multiple reliable sources. It is also good practice to make statements of opinion clearly statements of opinion, not statements of fact, and to make statements of fact only when supported by research with citable reliable sources. Following such practices will make defamation suits less likely, and less likely to succeed if any are brought.
Yes lawyers do this. quite often in fact. There are professional and publicity reasons of course, that should suffice to not give bad advice and harm your career. But there is also a legal reason. Lawyers are responsible for the advice they give (as most professionals). If they give bad advice, they may be liable for damages!
I have already contacted a lawyer and paid all the money I had and they didn't help me resolve anything, the guy just talked to me for a little bit. He essentially just took my $600 and no action was made. He said the best thing to do would be to wait it out because the contracts were never fulfilled by them and they can't claim my inventions etc if I am an independent contractor. To me it just sounded like a bunch of BS and not a real solution to this. You paid $600 for expert advice which told you to do nothing. You think the advice is bullshit and intend to go full steam ahead against the advice given. I'd say it is very likely that the lawyer is a better expert than you, so you should follow his advice. You are in a hole, you were told to stop digging, and you intend to continue digging. Don't. There are times where doing nothing is the best advice. In this case, you intend to accuse someone of breach of contract. That has a good chance of landing you in court. A company cannot afford to ignore such a statement. You claim the contract is void and you want to cancel it - but you can't cancel a void contract. It's void. Listen to your lawyer.
If your statement is true, it is not libel. But if it is false, it is libel. It does not matter if you directly name him, what matters is if he can be specifically identified by others. Not all others, but at least some others.
Not a lawyer, but: In many countries, a purchased item is your property once you removed it from the premises of the seller. In practice, this rarely makes a difference. You have entered a contract with the seller where the seller has to deliver the product, and you have to pay the money, you did your part, they have to do their part. There would be a difference if the item was stolen while in the store, or damaged by fire, or if the store went bankrupt and bailiffs took the item. If these rules apply in your country, then what they did is not theft, otherwise it would be theft (in all countries, if the store removed the door from your home after it is installed, that would be theft). You paid for a door, the store owes you a door. You have a legal contract. Both sides are bound by that legal contract. They have to do what the contract says (delivering the door that was displayed in the store), if they can't, then they have to do the nearest thing that isn't to your disadvantage, like delivering a new door. Or possible a different door that was on display. They can't just declare your contract invalid because it suits them better. That wouldn't be the case if this would put the store at an unacceptable disadvantage. For example, if thieves had broken into the store and stolen ten doors, including yours, the store might get away with returning your money. Since they intentionally sold your door again to someone else, I don't think they could use this as an excuse. I'd go once more to the store and ask them whether they want to deliver a door to you, according to your contract with the store, or if they want you to get a lawyer. A letter from a lawyer might work wonders. (Or of course the lawyer might tell you that I'm completely wrong, but they don't know that, so telling them that you will hire a lawyer might be enough).
Given that both parties have committed criminal offenses (the 'bad actor' is attempting fraud and the 'victim' has committed unauthorized access to a computer system), no court would hear a civil case between these parties. As a matter of public policy, criminals do not owe a duty of care to each other so no one can win this case.
Exactly the same thing that stops the same rogue lawyer from putting on a mask and robbing a bank. One is the crime of fraud and the other the crime of armed robbery but they are both crimes. People commit crimes all the time; that is why nearly 1 million people in the U.S. are in jail right now - some of them may even be in there for crimes they actually committed! Were your lawyer to commit this crime he may get caught or he may not; if he does he's going away for a long time and can never work as a lawyer again. So it's simply a matter of risk assessment; oh, and ethics