The former General Counsel for Cushman & Wakefield, Brett Soloway, faced a legal setback as a federal judge dismissed his defamation suit against Law.com. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled against Soloway, who claimed that an article published by Law.com defamed him by suggesting he was terminated due to his performance during contempt proceedings in a court case involving the Trump Organization.
Central to Soloway’s allegations was the argument that the article constituted defamation per se by implying that his dismissal resulted from poor job performance. However, the court determined that a reasonable reader might interpret the article without concluding that Soloway was fired due to professional inadequacies. Moreover, the judge noted Soloway’s inability to establish a defamation per quod claim, which requires evidence of special damages and a defamatory implication drawn from extrinsic facts. For more details, see the full report on Bloomberg Law.
This case stems from controversy surrounding the appraisal of properties belonging to former President Donald Trump, a matter of public and legal scrutiny. Soloway’s claim aimed at Law.com was based on implications drawn in contempt proceedings related to a New York lawsuit filed against the Trump Organization. The court’s decision indicates the complexities involved in defamation cases, particularly when issues of public interest and legal proceedings are implicated.
The outcome of this case could signal to legal professionals the challenges faced in proving defamatory intent and the high threshold for defamation claims, especially when public figures and media outlets are involved. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of meeting stringent legal standards to establish defamation, either per se or per quod, in federal court. Legal practitioners following similar cases should be aware that implications alone, without concrete allegations and evidence of damages, may not meet the threshold required to succeed in defamation litigation.