Baker v. Clark
1920 Ky. LEXIS 40, 186 Ky. 816, 218 S.W. 280 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A published statement that directly injures a person in their profession, such as accusing an attorney of filing a lawsuit without client authority, is libelous per se, meaning malice and damages are presumed. A defendant may have a qualified privilege when communicating with others who share a common interest, but this privilege is lost if the defendant acts with actual malice or knows the statement is false.
Facts:
- A. M. Baker, an attorney, was part of a law firm representing plaintiffs in a receivership lawsuit against the Burley Tobacco Company.
- Hugh Mahin and other stockholders of the company signed a written document explicitly authorizing 'the attorneys for the plaintiffs' in that suit to add their names as co-plaintiffs seeking the same relief.
- Pursuant to this written authorization, Baker filed an intervening petition adding Mahin and the others to the lawsuit.
- The Lexington Herald published an article stating that Mahin denied giving authority for his name to be used and claimed he was withdrawing from the suit.
- The article alleged that Mahin and others were led to believe the document they signed was merely a request for a financial statement, not an authorization to join a receivership lawsuit.
- J. D. Clark, a fellow stockholder in the Burley Tobacco Company, procured and mailed copies of the newspaper containing the article to other stockholders.
Procedural Posture:
- A. M. Baker filed a libel suit against J. D. Clark in a Kentucky trial court.
- Baker amended the petition to add further claims after Clark mailed copies of the allegedly libelous newspaper article to other individuals.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant, J. D. Clark.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing Baker's petition.
- Baker's motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court.
- Baker, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the state's highest court at the time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper article that accuses an attorney of filing a lawsuit without his clients' authority, by misrepresenting the nature of the document they signed, constitute libel per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Thomas
Yes, a newspaper article that accuses an attorney of such conduct is libelous per se. Published words that directly tend to injure a person in their profession are actionable per se, and an accusation of filing a suit without authority imputes a lack of professional integrity. When a publication is libelous per se, malice and damages are conclusively presumed, and the plaintiff does not have the burden of proving them. The court found that the central charge in the article was false, as uncontradicted evidence showed that Mahin and others signed a clear written authorization for Baker's firm to act. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that it had to find the defendant intended to make the libelous charge, as intent is presumed from the publication of words that are libelous per se. While the defendant had a qualified privilege when mailing the article to fellow stockholders who shared a common interest, that privilege can be defeated by a showing of actual malice or knowledge of the statement's falsity, and the trial court's instructions on this issue were also erroneous and contradictory.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle of libel per se as it applies to professionals, particularly attorneys, by holding that accusations of unethical conduct are inherently damaging. It clarifies that in such cases, the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of proving malice or specific damages, as harm to professional reputation is presumed. The decision also provides a clear application of the qualified privilege doctrine, establishing that a common interest among the publisher and recipient can create a privilege, but this protection is not absolute and is forfeited by malice or a knowing falsehood. This precedent reinforces the high standard of conduct expected of professionals while protecting them from false attacks that could undermine their careers.
Unlock the full brief for Baker v. Clark