Lexplug logoLexplug

Carole Lieberman, Dr. v. Geoffrey N. Fieger Fieger, Fieger & Schwartz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2003 Daily Journal DAR 8976, 338 F.3d 1076, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7115 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provably false factual assertion are protected by the First Amendment and are not actionable as defamation.


Facts:

  • Dr. Carole Lieberman served as an expert witness for the defense in the high-profile criminal trial of Jonathan Schmitz, who was convicted of murdering Scott Amedure after a taping of the Jenny Jones show.
  • Subsequently, attorney Geoffrey Fieger's firm, representing the Amedure family in a wrongful death suit, retained Dr. Lieberman as an expert witness.
  • A dispute over payment arose, and Dr. Lieberman submitted a bill for over $22,000, informing Fieger she would not testify until she was paid in full.
  • In response to Fieger's refusal to pay, Lieberman sued him for breach of contract and fraud, issuing a press release about the lawsuit.
  • During a televised Court TV interview about the wrongful death trial, a reporter asked Fieger about Lieberman's lawsuit.
  • In the interview, Fieger called Lieberman 'mentally unbalanced,' 'one of the Looney Tunes,' and repeated another attorney's alleged opinion that she was a 'terrible witness.'
  • Fieger also inaccurately stated the amount of a bill Lieberman had submitted in the prior criminal case and claimed the court had 'laughed at her' and 'gave her zero.'

Procedural Posture:

  • Dr. Carole Lieberman sued Geoffrey Fieger in state court for breach of contract and fraud.
  • Following Fieger's television interview, Lieberman amended her complaint to add claims for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Fieger removed the case to the United States District Court.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fieger on the slander, fraud, and emotional distress claims.
  • The parties subsequently settled the remaining breach of contract claim.
  • Lieberman (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Fieger as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do an attorney's statements on television, calling an opposing expert witness 'mentally unbalanced' and a 'Looney Tune' during a contentious and highly publicized legal dispute, constitute actionable slander or are they constitutionally protected opinion?


Opinions:

Majority - Thomas, Circuit Judge

No, the attorney's statements do not constitute actionable slander because they are a form of constitutionally protected opinion. The court determined this by looking at the totality of the circumstances. First, the general context was a heated, public legal battle where rhetorical hyperbole is common, meaning a reasonable viewer would not interpret the statements as objective facts. Second, the specific language used, such as 'Looney Tunes' and 'nuts,' is classic figurative and hyperbolic rhetoric, not a verifiable clinical diagnosis. Third, these epithets are not susceptible to being proven true or false. The court also found that Fieger's other statements, such as the judge having 'laughed' at Lieberman's bill, were non-actionable, colorful descriptions of the actual outcome (the fee request was denied), rather than literal assertions of fact.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high bar for defamation claims involving statements made in the context of a public controversy. It solidifies the use of the 'totality of the circumstances' test, emphasizing that context, hyperbolic language, and the inability to prove a statement's falsity are key factors in classifying a statement as protected opinion. The case illustrates that even harsh, insulting, and professionally damaging language may not be defamatory if a reasonable audience would perceive it as rhetorical exaggeration rather than a factual claim. This provides significant protection for heated speech during public disputes, particularly those involving public figures and media commentary.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Carole Lieberman, Dr. v. Geoffrey N. Fieger Fieger, Fieger & Schwartz (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"