Brothers Sue Lawyers for Jussie Smollett For Defamation

Abel and Ola Osundairo: Instagram

Abel and Ola Osundairo, the two brothers implicated in the hoax attack on Jussie Smollett, are heading back to court. This time however they will be appearing as plaintiffs in a defamation case against Smollett’s attorneys,  Tina Glandian and Mark Geragos. It is a relatively rare case against counsel and could test the limits of legal privilege in defamation.

Lawyers and witnesses have absolute privilege in court for statements made about others. The reason is obvious. Most of what lawyers and witnesses say would constitute defamation outside of court. Lawyers are often accusing people of crimes or lying in court. However, that litigation privilege can be lost once a lawyer walks outside of court. It applies to certain out of court statements including, as we discussed, some pre-trial letters. For example, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the absolute privilege applied to the publication of pleadings online and dissemination of the pleadings to the press in Norman v. Borison (2011). Many states extend privilege to delivering papers outside of court, giving pleadings to the media, correspondence related to litigation. Statements characterizing filings fall into an uncertain area and lawyers have been sued for public statements about opposing parties.

Recently Alan Dershowitz threatened to sue the lawyers of victims of sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, Dershowitz himself was sued for defamation.

In this case, Geragos and his firm defended Smollett by blaming the brothers for leading “a criminally homophobic, racist and violent attack against Mr. Smollett.” They alleged that the lawyer knew that these statements were untrue and that their client had orchestrated the hoax

Their lawyer has said that the Osundairos agreed to help with the hoax but never lied to police.

I have previously written about the disgraceful handling of the case by the Cook County District Attorney — a record that has only become more concerning with recent disclosures of inappropriate actions taken by District Attorney Kim Foxx.

This defamation case could force Smollett to address some of the allegations under oath. However, a court must first address the scope of any privilege afforded to counsel. It is likely to be limited by the court in media statements made by counsel. Lawyers have been successfully sued for such statements that stayed from the most basic discussions of the position of their clients in the courts.

For example, in Kennedy v. Zimmerman (Iowa 1999), the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a finding of absolute privilege by an attorney (Zimmerman) who told a reporter that the prior attorney representing his client (Kennedy) was responsible for a “breach of her ethical duties and negligent.”  The Court accepted the absolute privilege stated in the Restatement of Torts (Section 586)

 This privilege is best stated in the Restatement of Law (Second) of Torts section 586 “to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceedings.” However, it also ruled that “statements made during an occasion outside a judicial proceeding are not covered.” Thus, while “[t]he duties and actions of a lawyer in representing a client are not confined to judicial proceedings,” the court ruled that interviews with a reporter would fall outside of the privilege. It is important to note that most courts simply reject the notion of an absolute privilege while considering a more limited possible privilege for out-of-court statements. See Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 182 A.2d 54, 58 (1962) (the “absolute privilege will not attach to counsel’s extrajudicial publications, related to the litigation, which are made outside the purview of the judicial proceeding”).

Even pre-trial letters of notice have been held potentially defamatory. In Front, Inc., v. Philip Khalil, No. 19, 2015 WL 750965 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015), a court rejected an absolute privilege argument over a letter sent to a design firm ex-employee (Khalil) accused of downloading proprietary information. Front’s lawyers then sent a letter to Khalil and new firm, demanding that Khalil “cease and desist from using Front’s confidential and proprietary information, return the proprietary information he had taken, and refrain from contacting Front’s clients.” Later, Khalil filed a third-party complaint against Front and its counsel for libel per se based on the statements in the demand letter.

In the Khalil case, Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam of the NY Appellate Court held an absolute privilege would be “problematic” and “unnecessary.” While lawyers given latitude (as in this case) in these communications, they can lose the privilege where the intent is to “bully, harass, or intimidate their client’s adversaries.” Moreover, an attorney or its client may lose the privilege if the anticipated litigation is “baseless,” “wholly unmeritorious” or “unsupported in law and fact.” Likewise, in 2013, the Florida Supreme Court reached same result in in DelMonico, et al. v. Traynor for pre-trial interviews with potential witnesses and rejected an absolute privilege.  Justice Barbara Pariente ruled statements have a qualified privilege and require a showing of “express malice,” that the primary intent in making the statements was to damage the plaintiff’s reputation. 

This case could create some important new precedent in addressing not just privilege interests but free speech interests.

16 thoughts on “Brothers Sue Lawyers for Jussie Smollett For Defamation”

  1. So the Nigerians are suing because the lawyer said their hoax-attack against Smollett was racist? That should be interesting….

  2. Jussie Smollett was shown by sworn testimony to have actually hired those two guys to make his own false statements to the police more plausible – a point affirmed by the corrupt district attorney where that happened.

    It’s not ridiculous to deny absolute privilege to Smollett’s attorneys when they publish a libel that has been investigated and found false by officers of the court. This goes beyond “alternative theories of the crime” to knowing defamation of people who cooperated with the police after having been identified buying props for Jussie Smollett’s divisive, vicious scam.

  3. Why is the DA not prosecuted for corruption and dereliction of duty? The Smollett hoax team should have been vigorously prosecuted.

      1. Doesn’t the FBI investigate “civil rights violations?” Wait. Civil rights have a “race,” don’t they? Don’t the freed slaves and their allied “diversities” “call in the feds” every time their desires are not delighted – “free stuff” from the white man’s money – or they are subjected to law enforcement? Haven’t the constitutional rights of all Americans been denied when criminals are not prosecuted and their behaviors corrected? Don’t Americans have a constitutional right to law enforcement?

  4. Defense lawyers have a bad record of dreaming up “alternative” scenarios with no basis in fact as a strategy. I believe this tactic is willful defrauding of the Court. I would like to see defense attorneys held to the same standard of honesty as prosecutors, with the main difference being the burden of proof. In other words, if a defense lawyer posits a “theory” that can be disproved with objective evidence known to that lawyer, there should be contempt charges, a stiff fine, and disbarment for multiple violations. In other words, defense lawyers are expected to hue to a search for the truth as a higher principle than winning their case.

    1. Wrong–as defense attorney Gerald Shargel said, “a trial is a search for truth–but I’m not part of that search.”

      It’s the defense attorney’s job to defend their client to the best of their ability. Under your model, if they have to disclose when they don’t think their alternative theory is true, then clients who disclose to their attorney that they’re guilty would be screwed. Let both sides present their best arguments and let the jury decide.

    1. His birth name is Justin. The family called him Jussie growing up.

  5. Peter Shill stated on these forums that the Nigerian brothers are in the US illegally. So why not deport them, given Peter Shill’s reliable sources and, ahem, judgement


    Good Anon on March 30, 2019 at 6:45 PM
    Peter Shill: “As I noted yesterday, they could be in the country illegally.”

    They are American citizens you dumb ass.

    You are a pathetic troll. For all the crying you, Diane, Natacha, et al do about some politicians lying, you lie effortlessly, and like Bill and Hillary, smile about it

    P. Hill on March 30, 2019 at 9:54 PM
    Estovir, F off and die. If you can’t use your name, nothing you post means anything.


  6. They appear like they should report to the NFL combine next season. Likely more money in that vs. sycophanting for Hollywood never-was types.

    1. Other than both being body builders and African, they don’t look like full brothers. Different daddies?

  7. I see no reason why these two should not pursue this claim when one see’s what Jussie got away with, why not. Look what Hillary and the Dumocrats have gotten away with again I say Obel and Ola why not go for it.

  8. Where do I signup for the jury on that case? I promise to act in the same good faith shown by Jussie. I’d call that justice.

Comments are closed.