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.
Gyges:
If no is no and no is yes then yes is no. Had she said no then said yes but ultimately said no, then no is yes is no. The problem arose when he thought she said yes but after said no.
Actually she may have said oh yes, yes, yes, yes, oh no!
lottakatz;
Quibbling with the facts won’t get you anywhere. Fact is the bank can deny the charge and you can dispute it as well. Prostitution is illegal and the debt is unenforceable at law. Thus the scenario is more than plausible; it actually happened in a case here in Richmond.
Bron,
Wouldn’t that be “Yes means yes unless it means no?”
No always means no.
lottakatz:
no means no unless it means yes. how about women with “buyers” remorse after a blanket rangle that say they were raped? My father inlaw had one of those cases once, the young man almost got convicted and sentenced to 20 years in jail.
mespo, “Hooker A charges John B with rape after his credit card is rejected but the deal is consummated. Do I take from your assertion, that the jury should not hear that Hooker A is a sex worker? For her, did “yes” mean “no?” ”
You’re fudging on the example a bit aren’t you 😉 The transactional nature of the contact would be relevant but that’s not how the business works- the money changes hands (card is swiped) before the transaction takes place otherwise nobody would get paid. (That’s what I’m told anyway.) If the card doesn’t clear no transaction takes place based on plastic remuneration.
And the fact that she dresses ‘inappropriately’ is what Rush hung his hat on too. There are always reasons to blame a victim. “No” means ‘No”.
Uh oh, I took a closer look at the picture. I think I vote guilty.
I would base my decision as a juror on whether those things are real or not; If a woman can lie about her body, how much credence can you give to her testimony? 🙂
That would depend on what the meaning of NO is.
I know the elements and the decision of this case must derive from facts and not potential gender bias. However, I sure would like to read some lady lawyers’ perspectives on this case; not that the gentleman lawyers’ views have not been interesting and legally enlightening (because I never knew that *canons* of law was more correctly spelled with 2 n’s (nn).
This is a somewhat attractive woman, although her false façade and the rather unprofessional legal website would not entice me to seek her legal advice. However, if she passes the bar and advertizes within the allowable limits of her jurisdiction and First Amendment rights, then I certainly cannot judge the quality of her legal services.
I think that her work history is legally relevant given the specialized nature of her business interests.
Maggie Knowles:
“I don’t think it should matter if a person does sex related work for a living or not. No means no.”
*************
Hooker A charges John B with rape after his credit card is rejected but the deal is consummated. Do I take from your assertion, that the jury should not hear that Hooker A is a sex worker? For her, did “yes” mean “no?”
I am thinking that at some point in this case the term “legal briefs” will be used and everyone smirk and laugh under their breath.
Damn you Bob,Esq. Why couldn’t I think of that!!!
Talk about cannons of law!
mespo, I’ve changed my mind on this already. I reviewed her law firm web site and she does indeed capitalize on her Playboy experience. It’s a bit peculiar for a lawyer, but it’s now clear to me that her employment history will not be off limits.
Mike Appleton:
“If this case goes to trial, I would expect a lengthy motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to Ms. Fetman’s history as a Playboy model. Failing to exclude such evidence would probably constitute reversible error in the event of a defense verdict.”
************
Let’s review the case. Plaintiff, a lawyer (with a self-described “tenacious argumentative” style) and former nude Playboy model, seeks redress for alleged sexual harassment at the hands of a co-worker (or superior–the record is not clear). Defendants seek to introduce evidence that the Plaintiff engaged in actions designed to entice men’s sexual attention, and now produces a racy column ostensibly providing titillating sexual advice as part of her manifest campaign of self-promotion. While I agree that “no” means “no,” plaintiff is not immune from a defense that she expressly invited or consented to the conduct, or that the accusation is a fabricated publicity stunt. I think her prior employment seeking attention by portraying herself as an object of sexual desire, coupled with her current work writing a sexually suggestive column as the “Lawyer of Love,”in a “men’s magazine” has some, albeit not conclusive, relevance to the issue of consent or fabrication. This is especially true given her proclivity for self-endorsement as evidenced by her website, suggestive billboard ad campaign, publicity photographs, and numerous media appearances portraying herself as the ‘world’s hottest lawyer.”.
I am not saying she should lose her case, just that the jury has the right to know this is not “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” we’re talking about.
MikeA:
you are probably right on the generational mores and men being bigger pigs today.
But what has caused that?
Heff always struck me as a bit of a reprobate. Typically organizations take on the character of the leader so I think I have validity on that point.
Bron98, I disagree. Your grandmother kept the door open in compliance with the social mores of the time. Indeed, I expect that men are probably bigger pigs now than they ever were in your grandmother’s youth. In addition, I suspect that the employees of Playboy are like the employees of any other major publication. After all, the photography is only one facet of the magazine. The goal is to put out a product that will earn a profit, utilizing the same arithmetic and business models that are used by “Better Homes and Gardens.” I doubt that naked women are running around the office and, even if they were, so what?
Maggie:
I understand that no means no but a good many women give very mixed signals. My grandmother used to tell me that when she was young if you had a man up to your room, which was rare, you told the land lord and you left the door wide open. I suppose the idea was that men are pigs and you need to take some responsibility for the outcome.
That being said the workplace is indeed no venue for grab a…., but I would think Playboy probably attracts the type of person (male or female) that would be willing to engage in that sort of behaviour.
If this case goes to trial, I would expect a lengthy motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to Ms. Fetman’s history as a Playboy model. Failing to exclude such evidence would probably constitute reversible error in the event of a defense verdict.
I don’t think it should matter if a person does sex related work for a living or not. No means no.
Well this case will certainly be taken seriously by the good men and women of the jury panel. I am guessing a defense verdict after the guys on the panel view each and every piece of photographic evidence and then read the column’s advice, and the ladies finish wretching–or laughing.
I also notice from the firm web site that Fox News has dubbed her the world’s “hottest lawyer,” which I guess implies that she is actually a toll booth operator who dates about twice a year.
It’s always sad for those whose face is their fortune — the account dries up so quickly.