Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 8, 2016 by admin

Torts — Defamation — Trial court properly awarded attorney damages in libel action against defendant who posted derogatory reviews of attorney on internet

41
Fla. L. Weekly D122a

Torts
— Defamation — Trial court properly awarded attorney damages in libel action
against defendant who posted derogatory reviews of attorney on internet —
Internet reviews containing false information did not constitute statements of
opinion which were protected by First Amendment and not actionable as
defamation — Defamation per se still exists in Florida in cases not involving
media defendants

COPIA BLAKE and PETER BIRZON, Appellants, v. ANN-MARIE
GIUSTIBELLI, P.A., and ANN-MARIE GIUSTIBELLI, individually, Appellees. 4th
District. Case No. 4D14-3231. January 6, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 12-22244 (12). Counsel: Copia Blake, Kansas City, MO, and Peter
Birzon, Weston, pro se. Ann-Marie Giustibelli, Plantation, for appellees.
(CIKLIN, C.J.) After a non-jury trial, the trial court
awarded the appellee, attorney Ann-Marie Giustibelli, damages in this libel and
breach of contract case. In their initial brief on appeal, the appellants,
Copia Blake and Peter Birzon, raised five issues. After briefs were filed and
the court spent considerable time entertaining the issues raised, Birzon filed
a notice that he and the appellee had settled the matter and that he was
withdrawing his appeal. Blake did not join in the notice. We note that even if
she had, we would not have dismissed the appeal. One issue Blake and Birzon
raised involves the application of free speech protections to reviews of
professional services posted on the internet. We affirm in all respects, but
this issue merits discussion as it presents a scenario that will likely recur,
and the public will benefit from an opinion on the matter. See Caiazzo v. Am.
Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245, 248-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizing
that appellate court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over an appeal after
it has been voluntarily dismissed, particularly where “the case presents a
question of public importance and substantial judicial labor has been expended”
(quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 1995))).
Attorney Giustibelli represented Copia Blake in a
dissolution of marriage proceeding brought against Peter Birzon. After a
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship between Giustibelli and her
client, Blake and oddly, Birzon as well, took to the internet to post
defamatory reviews of Giustibelli. In response, Giustibelli brought suit,
pleading a count for libel. She also brought counts for breach of contract and
for attorney’s fees, alleging that Blake still owed her money related to the
divorce representation.
Blake’s and Birzon’s posted internet reviews contained the
following statements:
This
lawyer represented me in my divorce. She was combative and explosive and took
my divorce to a level of anger which caused major suffering of my minor
children. She insisted I was an emotionally abused wife who couldn’t make
rational decisions which caused my case to drag on in the system for a year and
a half so her FEES would continue to multiply!! She misrepresented her fees
with regards to the contract I initially signed. The contract she submitted to
the courts for her fees were 4 times her original quote and pages of the
original had been exchanged to support her claims, only the signature page was
the same. Shame on me that I did not have an original copy, but like an idiot .
. . I trusted my lawyer. Don’t mistake sincerity for honesty because I assure
you, that in this attorney’s case, they are NOT the same thing. She absolutely
perpetuates the horrible image of attorneys who are only out for the money and
themselves. Although I know this isn’t the case and there are some very good
honest lawyers out there, Mrs. Giustibelli is simply not one of the “good
ones[.]” Horrible horrible experience. Use anyone else, it would have to be a
better result.
**********
No
integrity. Will say one thing and do another. Her fees outweigh the truth.
Altered her charges to 4 times the original quote with no explanation. Do not
use her. Don’t mistake sincerity for honesty. In her case, they’re not at all
the same. Will literally lie to your face if it means more money for her. Get
someone else. . . . Anyone else would do a superior effort for you
.
**********
I
accepted an initial VERY fair offer from my ex. Mrs. Giustibelli convinced me
to “crush” him and that I could have permanent etc. Spent over a year (and 4
times her original estimate) to arrive at the same place we started at. Caused
unnecessary chaos and fear with my kids, convinced me that my ex cheated (which
he didn’t), that he was hiding money (which he wasn’t), and was mad at ME when
I realized her fee circus had gone on long enough and finally said “stop[.]”
Altered her fee structures, actually replaced original documents with others to
support her charges and generally gave the kind of poor service you only hear
about. I’m not a disgruntled ex-wife. I’m just the foolish person who believes
that a person’s word should be backed by integrity. Not even remotely true in
this case. I’ve had 2 prior attorneys and never ever have I seen ego and monies
be so blatantly out of control.
Both Blake and Birzon admitted to posting the reviews on
various internet sites. The evidence showed that Blake had agreed to pay her
attorney the amount reflected on the written retainer agreement — $300 an
hour. Blake and Birzon both admitted at trial that Giustibelli had not charged
Blake four times more than what was quoted in the agreement. The court entered
judgment in favor of Giustibelli and awarded punitive damages of $350,000.
On appeal, Blake and Birzon argue that their internet
reviews constituted statements of opinion and thus were protected by the First
Amendment and not actionable as defamation. We disagree. “[A]n action for libel
will lie for a ‘false and unprivileged publication by letter, or otherwise,
which exposes a person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or
which causes such person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such
person in [their] office, occupation, business or employment.’ ” LRX, Inc.
v. Horizon Assoc. Joint Venture ex rel. HorizonANF, Inc.
, 842 So. 2d 881,
885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Thomas v. Jacksonville Television, Inc.,
699 So. 2d 800, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)).1

Here, all the reviews contained allegations that Giustibelli
lied to Blake regarding the attorney’s fee. Two of the reviews contained the
allegation that Giustibelli falsified a contract. These are factual
allegations, and the evidence showed they were false.
As part of their “free speech” claim, Blake and Birzon point
out that the judgment references defamation “per se.” They argue that libel per
se no longer exists as a legal concept after the decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Gertz, 418 U.S. 323 (1974). “[A] publication is
libelous per se, or actionable per se, if, when considered alone without
innuendo: (1) it charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) it
charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) it tends to subject one
to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace; or (4) it tends to injure
one in his trade or profession.” Richard v. Gray, 62 So. 2d 597, 598
(Fla. 1953); see also Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2001) (“When a statement charges a person with committing a crime, the
statement is considered defamatory per se.” (citation omitted)). In Gertz,
the Court held that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the
States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a
publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private
individual.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 347. After Gertz, the Florida
Supreme Court recognized that, with respect to a libel action against the
media
, it is no longer accurate to say that “ ‘[w]ords amounting to a libel
per se necessarily import damage and malice in legal contemplation, so these
elements need not be pleaded or proved, as they are conclusively presumed as a
matter of law.’ ” Mid-Fla. Television Corp. v. Boyles, 467 So. 2d 282,
283 (Fla. 1985) (quoting Layne v. Tribune Co., 146 So. 234 (1933)).
Thus, after Gertz, in libel cases involving media defendants, fault and
proof of damages must always be established.
Notably, the instant case does not involve a media
defendant. Libel per se otherwise still exists in Florida. See Lawnwood Med.
Ctr., Inc. v. Sadow
, 43 So. 3d 710, 727-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (containing
discussion of the presumption of damages that applies in defamation per se
cases); Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So. 2d 664, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
(reversing trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss a libel per se action
brought by a former editor of a newspaper against his supervisor, who had
written a letter to a reader suggesting that the editor was fired for reasons
that were shameful); Owner’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So. 2d
466, 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (concluding that statements in a letter amounted to
libel per se as a matter of law).
As to the remaining arguments raised on appeal, we decline
to address them as they are not sufficiently briefed, not preserved, or lack
merit.
Affirmed. (MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Statements of pure opinion are not
actionable. Morse v. Ripken, 707 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
However, “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” Id.
(quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 (1974)). If a
factfinder “were to conclude that any of the [assertions of fact] in the
[publication] were false, [this] would allow the [factfinder] to disregard the
pure opinion defense.” LRX, 842 So. 2d at 886.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982