I somehow missed this when the story first came out, but Judith Regan, who recently settled her wrongful termination lawsuit against News Corp., has been sued by the lawyers who represented her in connection with that litigation, the Associated Press reports. The two law firms that represented Regan claim that she stiffed them on more than $40,000 in fees, and that she cut them out of the settlement. Also named as a defendant is Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields, who evidently helped Regan negotiate the settlement. Fields calls the suit “utter hogwash” and has threatened to file a claim for malicious prosecution. I’m not privy to the inside details on this one, but I’d wager that the lawyers have the better of the argument. And methinks that Mr. Fields protests too much, and too clownishly, as he appears wont to do.

The February 19 edition of The Recorder contains an article that reports on a recent panel American Bar Association panel discussion on lawyers and television during which at least one of the participants speculated that television shows such as “Boston Legal” have contributed to the low esteem in which the public purportedly holds the legal profession. Maybe I’m alone hers, but this seems silly to me. Does anyone really think to themselves “Gee, Denny Crane and Alan Shore are unethical, lie and sleep with their clients. I am now convinced that all lawyers are evil.” Of course they don’t. “Boston Legal,” “Law & Order” and shows like them are entertainment. The viewing public is smart enough to know that. We lawyers have given the public plenty of reasons to distrust us. Dnny Crane didn’t do this to us. We did it to ourselves, and we need to fix it ourselves. The first step is to stop blaming others, and to focus on our clients. Memo to the ABA – Denny Crane isn’t real. Denny Crane.

Disgraced radio host Don Imus will sue CBS Radio for the huge portion of his $40 million contract that was left unpaid after he was fired for racist and sexist comments, his attorney said Thursday.

Martin Garbus, a First Amendment attorney, said he plans to file the breach of contract lawsuit by the end of next week.

Imus, 66, was barely three months into the five-year deal with CBS when he was dismissed April 12 after describing the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” on his nationally syndicated radio program.

Garbus cited a contract clause in which CBS acknowledged that Imus’ services were “unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial.” The clause said Imus’ programming was “desired by company and … consistent with company rules and policy,” according to Garbus.

CBS Radio, in a statement issued Thursday, said it would vigorously contest Imus’ claim.

“We terminated Mr. Imus for cause,” the statement said. “Based on the comments in question and relevant contract terms, we believe that the termination was appropriate and CBS would expect to prevail in any attempt by Mr. Imus to recover money for his actions.”

Garbus’ past clients include comedian Lenny Bruce, the rap group Public Enemy and filmmaker Spike Lee.

Source for post: The Associated Press

Yesterday’s New York Times included an interesting story on the brewing litigation between pubslishing diva Judith Regan and her former employer, Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. The article includes the interesting news that Regan’s lawyer, Bert Fields, is considering filing a libel claim against NewsCorp. As the author of the Times article correctly points out, libel cases are extremely difficult to prove, especially for public figures such as Ms. Regan. The standard of proof – actual malice – that Ms. Regan would need to meet is prohibitive. It is also a certainty that every sordid little bit of Ms. Regan’s personal history would become fair game in discovery, a prospect that she is likely to find not only uncomforatble, but a distinct impediment to her future business prospects, to boot. If Mr. Fields were to follow through on the bluster and file such a claim, my money would be on Mr. Murdochh to win what would likely become as nasty a fight as you’ll see. That said, I would look for this matter to be resolved the same way most commercial disputes are – settlement.

Evidently Donald Trump is preparing to file a lawsuit against Rosie O’Donnellfor unspecified reasons. I don’t usually watch “Access Hollywood,” but watch the video that is linked on this page from their site. Donald’s take down is hilarious.

In this interesting piece from the New York Times it is reported that Judith Regan was fired after her intemperate behavior provoked the News Corp head honcho himself, Rupert Murdoch. If this account is true, it would lessen the likelihood that Regan’s firing was the result of a personal feud she was said to have had with her boss at HarperCollins. Rupert Murdoch is a pretty shrewd executive. If he personally ordered Ms. Regan’s termination, I would surmise that it is considerably more likely than I at first thought that News Corp’s “for cause” defense would stand up.

The New York Times reports today that, surprise, surprise, Judith Regan intends to fire News Corp., the parent company of Regan’s former employer, publisher HarperCollins, which includes the eponymous ReganBooks, over her termination. According to The Times, Ms. Regan intends to claim that News Corp breached her employment contract when it terminated her. News Corp claimed it terminated Ms. Regan for cause. If in fact cause did exist, News Corp could be excused from paying Ms. Regan under her contract. Given the alleged justification for the firing – that Ms. Regan made anti-Semitic remarks during a phone conversation with a HarperCollins lawyer – this would appear, from an evidentiary standpoint, to be a “he said, she said” problem of proof. Essentially a roll of the dice. Unless News Corp can offer independent documentation that Ms. Regan made anti-Semitic remarks, it would seem that it will have a difficult time defending such a claim.