Chicago divorce attorney, Corri Fetman, 45, is suing Playboy magazine alleging that an executive Thomas Hagopian harassed her and eventually dropped her column from the magazine where she wrote under the nom de guerre “Lawyer of Love.” Fetman previously posed nude for the magazine and has maintained a highly controversial practice in my home town of Chicago.
Fetman says that Hagopian sent her sexually explicit emails and groped her before dropping her column. The fact that she worked at an sexually explicit magazine does not change the question of sexual harassment. Sexually explicit acts and statements are confined to the magazine, not the workplace.
The interesting aspect of the case would be the trial and whether, for example, the court lets in the fact that Fetman posed nude and wrote a racy column. It is hard to see how the nude photos would be relevant and it might prejudice the jury.
Playboy says that Hagopian left the company last year. Fetman is asking for $4.5 million in damages for, among other things, “gender violence” and emotional distress. In the meantime, the “Lawyer of Love” appropriately remains a divorce lawyer.
Fetman has been much in the news with her controversial ad campaign “Life is Short, Get a Divorce” which featured sexy models. Fetman herself is featured prominently in the coverage of the campaign — pictures which could again have a highly negative impact on a jury. This pictures like the one to the left could be introduced by the defense as part of an argument that Fetman commonly engaged in sexually explicit acts or speech. Yet, such an attack would only go so far given the allegation of groping. 
This is how the firm of Fetman, Garland & Associates describes her:
Corri D. Fetman is a self made entrepreneur who elected to limit her practice to primarily family and matrimonial law after practicing in numerous areas of the law since 1988. Fetman worked full time while attaining her undergraduate degree at DePaul University with honors in 1985. After taking several classes in pre-law at DePaul, a professor recommended that Fetman attend law school due to her “tenacious argumentative” skills and “natural ability to present issues in a logical fashion.” This same professor wrote a written recommendation for Fetman and she was given a partial scholarship to DePaul College of Law. While working full time, Fetman attended DePaul College of Law and served on the DePaul Law Review.
After attaining her law degree, Fetman clerked for an appellate law judge and practiced in numerous areas of the law, including, securities fraud, commercial and labor law, complex civil litigation, school law, entertainment law, construction law, bankruptcy and transactional work
In 1993, Fetman worked for a prominent divorce firm in Chicago and determined at that time that she wanted to practice primarily in family and matrimonial law. Fetman found matrimonial law to be fascinating and complex because it encompassed transactional law, complex issues in numerous areas of the law and litigation.
In 1995, Fetman started the law firm of Chicago Women at Law, Ltd. from her home. Since that time, with hard work and determination, Fetman has significantly developed the firm and has been featured in various publications due to her “no nonsense” and unconventional reputation in the field of matrimonial law. Fetman has coordinated and moderated seminars for and served as a co-chair of Illinois State Bar Association CLE Family Law Committee from 2004-2005. Fetman also served on the Women’s Board of the Chicago Symphony from 2005-2006.
Nary a mention of the “Lawyer of Love.” This could make for quite a trial.
For the full story, click here.
Unless she was being threatened with rape in these e-mails, she can take a hike. This is so petty, and she’s just going for a buck. Not to defend Playboy and their bimbos and stupid staff, but I’m hoping this case ended in favor of the defense, if not thrown out entirely. Ridiculous.
Meanwhile, this minx encourages marriages to end for her own financial gain.
These comments are written by lawyers which is why nothing makes sense. Let’s try old fashioned common sense.
In the 1960’s women go to work in micromini skirts, see thru bras and Playboy Bunny ears. They screw everybody in the office and turn the business office into a whorehouse. Then, when big, bad men start grabbing their goodies and making lewd, lascivious advances, women decide that they are being “sexually harassed”. Sound like bullshit? That is exactly what it is.
Now, in the instant case, a female lawyer exposes all her goodies for all the world to see. She flaunts her boobs and butt in living color on the pages of Playboy and then professes to be offended because a Playboy exec grabs her butt and sends her (“Horror of horrors”) dirty Emails! Shock, gasp, faint. It is almost as good as Mae West filing a lawsuit because someone made a “pistol in the pussy” joke.
Female shyster argues that sex only belongs in the magazine, not in real life. It’s like “I can walk around bare ass at the beach but don’t you dare use a video camera to look up my skirt”. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, not having the dubious benefit of a legal education, I can actually think straight.
Replying to Bron98:
I think that is what Dick Cheney has always tried to maintain about it family life.
That is why we have so many CoA decisions that make nonsense in the big picture. They recently upheld that the wife of the deceased parent is a better placement than the natural biological parent. Go figure how many hey days that this result will make in the real world. We have One Family Court, yeah right. Where all decisions are to be made by the Same JUDGE regarding the best interest of the children. Interesting to note, the Biological Fathers rights had never been terminated, suspended or interfered with.
I think, yes, sometimes I do. Is the CoA should have remanded the case to the Circuit Court, retained Jurisdiction over the case and recommended that the Family should file a Ltd Guardianship to determine who should have primary custody with rights of visitation. Until the case, step-parents had no rights. They now have, as it appears from the case the same rights as natural parents…
Mespo:
That is interesting about conservative in the abstract and liberal in the “particular”.
Bron98:
Labels are poor methods of understanding how people think. Like you, I am “conservative” on some issues and “liberal” on others. For example, I have no compassion nor understanding for abusers of the weak or innocent whether it be the elderly, children or animals. But I do believe people’s actions are not always a voluntary choice as in the case of mental illness or extreme deprivation. Also I find myself being more “conservative” in the abstract, and more “liberal” when faced with a specific set of facts and a real live breathing human being before me. I like to think of myself as a rational skeptic, hence my avatar.
Mespo:
I must say your analysis of this was excellent and was educational. You even sounded, dare I say it, conservative on some of your points and I agreed with the majority of what you said. Although it might be that I am becoming, my god the thought of it, a little bit more liberal in my thinking.
Lottakatz:
Larry Flint is a despicable individual and I think Hugh Heffner is a putz, the only way he could get a woman to sleep with him is either rape her or pay her which in essence is what he does.
Groping women is for chicken shits and has no place in business but……….
Gyges:
I dont think it is systemic, I just used that as an example. There are some women that do do things like that, I am not condeming the entire fairer sex for the actions of a few.
I understand exactly what you are saying mespo. We will just agree to disagree on this subject.
“Pretty Woman.” I didn’t see it, I don’t do ‘Cinderella’, idealization or elitism. As close as you will get to Cinderella and sex workers is “Live Nude Girls Unite”, a 2000 documentary of an organizing effort in a strip club. It’s a good flick. I do though do Labor Activism. 🙂
lottakatz:
“That a woman working in the sex industry might be held, culturally, in lower esteem than a male (supervisor) simply plays to a jury’s cultural bias. A lawyers trick.”
****************
I guess I would respond that in determining credibility most every relevant circumstance concerning the complainant should be explored especially when that person seeks to imprison another for a substantial period of their lifetime or deprive the defendant of the fruits of his/her labor. That a person is a convicted felon certainly bears upon his/her credibility. That a person works in a profession that requires secrecy and deception and is further illegal certainly bears on the person’s capacity to be believed. I think you have adopted a position which holds that a person claiming victimhood should not be challenged on their word. That is simply bad law and bad policy and is a kind of elitism borne of protecting one class of people against another. While that might be appropriate in limited circumstances such as when a child is victimized, it has no place in the world of adult interaction.
I suspect you have an idealized view of so-called “sex workers,” a la Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman.” I have no such illusions. There are reasons people subject themselves to physical degradation in lieu of social welfare or lawful employment. Most people would agree, I suspect, that that such a lifestyle choice bears directly on their character and when another person’s life or liberty stand in the dock against the word of such a person, I find it incomprehensible that their word should remain insulated from their character as disclosed by what they do for money. That’s not a lawyers trick, that is common sense.
mespo, “In essence every cases rises or falls on its own facts, and general statements about how things should “always” happen are rarely true and even less useful in deciding human interactions. That was the point I was making.”
I like your postings and the level of discourse on this blog. I would hesitate to take issue with most things stated by the posters here. You folks entertain and teach me too much to let my inner troll surface.
That the facts in this matter are opaque leaves us plumbing ourselves and not the story. The portion of your last post quoted above is the most relevant regarding this story and one I am in complete agreement with. Just as I am in complete agreement with Maggie Knowles position that it shouldn’t matter if a person does sex related work for a living or not. No means no.
The standards for bringing and proving a case of sexual harassment are pretty clear. The same standards apply to all employer/employee relationships. That it is the sex industry does not broaden the standard as written and settled by case law. That a woman working in the sex industry might be held, culturally, in lower esteem than a male (supervisor) simply plays to a jury’s cultural bias. A lawyers trick.
I quibble without apology 🙂
Slippery One:
Good story, but bad lawyering. Our defense lawyer should have stopped asking at question number six. He could have then argued the exact point to the jury and avoided the “comeback” line he so richly deserved for fumbling the opportunity.
LOTTAKATZ:
The “facts” are contained in my hypothetical question. You quibbled with them by saying that the credit card denial was implausible. That is “fighting the facts” of the question I asked. It’s a common tactic among law school students trying to avoid the issue raised, and I wasn’t going to let you or Maggie Knowles get away without thinking of the more extreme situation to prove that your all-encompassing “never blame the supposed victim” position is just as unjust and untrue as always blaming the victim. In essence every cases rises or falls on its own facts, and general statements about how things should “always” happen are rarely true and even less useful in deciding human interactions. That was the point I was making.
FFLEO, “…might be tongue-in-cheek…Without conclusive evidence there is simply no way to know who is lying in this situation; bring in the lawyers”
You’re absolutely right on both points.
SO here’s the scenario”
If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman. He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial. The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman’s credibility..
Q: ‘Officer — did you see my client fleeing the scene?’
A: ‘No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.’
Q: ‘Officer — who provided this description?’
A: ‘The officer who responded to the scene.’
Q: ‘A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?’
‘Yes, sir. With my life.’
Q: ‘With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?’ A: ‘Yes sir, we do!’
Q: ‘And do you have a locker in the room?’
A: ‘Yes sir, I do.’
Q: ‘And do you have a lock on your locker?’
A: ‘Yes sir.’
Q: ‘Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?’
A: ‘You see, sir — we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.’
The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called. The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year’s ‘Best Comeback’ line — and we think he’ll win.
Hopefully, it will be as funny as this.
Bron,
Does someone falsely accusing someone of theft have any bearing on the legitimacy of cases against people who actually have stolen something? No matter what the crime, someone is bound to try and frame someone for it. One example does not systematic abuse make.
lottakatz,
Some of the discussion might be tongue-in-cheek. Such he said, she said cases as this are never black and white, just like broken relationships. Without conclusive evidence there is simply no way to know who is lying in this situation; bring in the lawyers.
mespo “Quibbling with the facts won’t get you anywhere.”
Respectfully, there were no facts, only a ‘what if’. I have no personal experience with paying for sex but the stories my male acquaintances told me lead me to believe that challenging the payment later wasn’t typical or even part of the equation.
Regarding personal anecdotes: I never had any misunderstanding with anyone I DIDN’T have sex with. Sitting on it or keeping it in your pants is the one way to avoid misunderstanding, personal or legal, maybe a little more of that would make a discussion like superfluous 😉
I am amazed that on a blog that has such a high number of apparently well educated and learned posters the discussion seems to break pretty cleanly along sex and a tendency toward ‘blame the (alleged) victim’ seems to be so prevalent. I’m a female, maybe we’re just coming from different life experience.
Oh heck, I think she is looking for an easy banana to squeeze, so to speak. This probably has to be a very lonely woman looking for attention. I am sure her looks have not helped her get as far as she gone. I am sure if she was ugly and flat chested she would have gotten all of the breaks as well.
I am not diminishing her role in life and she should not be either. She is writing for a Men’s Magazine that she has posed for the magazine in the past Nude.
When does it become harassment? I can only think that she liked the attention and now the magazine is having publication issues like a lot of papers. Both of the major Chicago papers have filed Bankruptcy. The good ole boys made a hard decision and let her go. Humm, where does this lead us? Oh yes, to a lawsuit. Is this any different than the jilted lover.
Last but not least, who runs this magazine? Hughs daughter. Did she grope her too. If I was the defense team I would have a hey day with her and point out all of the things she has done.
The ad that she has with her big breasts so prominent. You may not get some things in but the rules of evidence allow impeachment as well as conforming conduct. So I would say lets bring it on.
You’ve got your Bazookas and I’ll bring my Tommy Gun or Gatling. Lets see what and who is standing last.
ovy