James K. Trefil of the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP wrote a defamatory letter to the company that owns WordPress, this blog’s host. Mr. Trefil’s intent was to scare WordPress into deleting this blog. It was supposedly mailed on December 19, 2024, according to court documents filed by Mr. Trefil.

Thus far, and to the credit of WordPress and Automattic, Inc., you are still able to read my blog.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Here is a letter I just emailed to Mr. Trefil and will put in the mail when it stops raining.

ChatGPT is not an attorney. It is a tool that uses artificial intelligence. It is a good sounding board, that offers avenues to explore with more authoritative sources. Here is what ChatGPT had to say about the defamatory letter and whether an attorney could be found liable for damages caused by a defamatory letter to a non-governmental agency.

Yes, a lawyer can potentially be found guilty of defamation for statements made in a letter to a non-governmental agency, even if those statements are made on behalf of their client. However, whether the lawyer can be held liable depends on several factors:

Key Considerations:

1. Privilege:
   • Absolute Privilege: Lawyers generally have absolute privilege for statements made in court filings, during litigation, or in other official judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This privilege does not extend to communications with non-governmental agencies unless those communications are part of such a proceeding.
   • Qualified Privilege: If the communication is related to a matter of mutual interest or made in good faith, a lawyer may have qualified privilege. However, this can be lost if the statement is made with malice or without a legitimate basis.
2. Truth as a Defense: Defamation requires the statement to be false. If the statements made in the letter are true, the lawyer cannot be held liable for defamation, regardless of how damaging they are.
3. Malice: If the lawyer makes statements with actual malice—knowing they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth—they could be held liable for defamation.
4. Role and Intent:
   • If the lawyer is merely relaying information provided by the client, their liability could depend on whether they exercised reasonable care in verifying the claims before making them.
   • If the lawyer independently makes defamatory statements, they may face greater liability.
5. Non-Privileged Contexts: Communications with non-governmental agencies, especially those unrelated to litigation, are less likely to be protected by absolute privilege. For instance, a letter to a private organization or regulatory body could expose the lawyer to liability if it contains defamatory remarks and lacks privilege or justification.

Stay tuned.