• Home
  • News
  • Ex-Associate Badmouths Former Firm in Legal Blog

Media & Communications Law

Ex-Associate Badmouths Former Firm in Legal Blog

Posted Nov 2, 2009 1:35 PM CST
By Martha Neil

It isn't what an attorney would generally recommend to a client. But attorney Edward Harrington Heyburn says he was willing to risk litigation when he created a legal blog that badmouths partners at the New Jersey law firm at which he formerly worked, Levinson Axelrod.

His Levinson Axelrod Sucks blog "isn't exactly risk averse," notes the Business Insider in a post that relies on information from the New Jersey Law Journal.

Since the word "sucks" was recently added to the name of Heyburn's site (located at levinsonaxelrod.net), it now clearly isn't the official Levinson Axelrod website, the post points out.

The New Jersey Law Journal says that Levinson Axelrod has retained Thomas Cafferty of Scarinci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst, who plans to file suit shortly over Heyburn's website.

Although Cafferty declined to discuss potential causes of action, Richard Ravin, an intellectual property lawyer who doesn't practice at the firm, tells the legal publication that defamation and trademark infringement would be among the possibilities.

"Unfortunately, lawyers are demigods. We sit by and encourage others to press the boundaries of free speech but are reluctant to do so ourselves," says Heyburn in comments that are the subject of a subsequent Business Insider post.

"I chose my words carefully," he states, adding that he is willing to take a lie-detector test.

Heyburn, who was reportedly fired by Levinson Axelrod firm in 2004 (he says it was because he intended to establish his own practice) offers a number of unflattering opinions of the partners there in his website.

Comments

1.

AndytheLawyer
Nov 2, 2009 3:03 PM CST

Of course, truth is an absolute defense to defamation.  The depositions should be a laff riot.

Flag this comment

2.

blahblah
Nov 2, 2009 3:16 PM CST

And nominative use is a defense to trademark infringement.  There are a large number of cases essentially saying that one can use a trademark in this way.

Flag this comment

3.

Mac The Knife
Nov 2, 2009 3:23 PM CST

Great free publicity for Heyburn’s blog.  Assuming the statements presented as fact on his blog are truthful, LA has no case and all its done is further undermined itself by placing the blog in the public eye in a way that the Heyburn could never have accomplished on his own.

Flag this comment

4.

associate
Nov 2, 2009 3:49 PM CST

walmartsucks.com and peopleofwalmart.com come to mind.  Interesting use of capital by the firm here.

Flag this comment

5.

Biff
Nov 3, 2009 8:38 AM CST

A very professional and elegant-looking website - and one I probably would not have heard of had the firm not decided to make an issue out of this. Given the market for lawyers these days, such a website might not be terribly “career-limiting” .

Flag this comment

6.

Been There
Nov 3, 2009 10:56 AM CST

I haven’t peeked at teh site.  It seems to me, however,  that it would be very hard to run such a site and avoid either disclosing attorney client confidences or,  just as troublesome, placing former firm colleagues at some disadvantage trhat might also jeopardize the firm’s clients.  Lawyers have duties to former as well as present clients, and they are officers of the court.  They have to give up the idea that they have absolutely free speech. They don’t.  Their responsibilities to their clients and to the integrity of the judicial system puts limits on their speech.

Flag this comment

7.

Edward Harrington Heyburn
Nov 3, 2009 1:33 PM CST

I created the Website.  I do not discuss client’s communications.  I do expose all of the nasty things Levinson Axelrod did when the clients are not around, ie insulting clients, spying on associates and making misrepresentations.

Flag this comment

8.

Sam O'Herlihy
Nov 3, 2009 1:38 PM CST

It seems as if the purpose of the site is not to expose anything about LA but rather to expose the world to EHH. One smart cookie. It would be nice to have him acknowledge that is (at least in large part) what is driving this “crusade”. Nice amount of free ink for him and his practice.

Flag this comment

9.

Lee
Nov 3, 2009 5:05 PM CST

This story is “Exhibit A” that Brendan Behan was right when he said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”

Flag this comment

10.

Fred
Nov 6, 2009 6:54 AM CST

Wow, a disgruntled Associate Attorney, I’m shocked.  What’s next the invention of the lightbilb?

10 years from now you’ll look back and realize how small and stupid this really is in the grand scheme of life.

Best of luck building a practice when people are researching you and find this garbage on the internet…

Flag this comment

11.

Bill
Nov 6, 2009 7:20 AM CST

Someone has invented a lightbilb?

Flag this comment

12.

B. McLeod
Nov 6, 2009 7:29 AM CST

Bill, it yas 20% fewer calories than a regular bilb.

Flag this comment

13.

Einstein
Nov 6, 2009 7:38 AM CST

They can not stop him from doing this and they know it. What they can do is try to make it expensive, in time and money. I love the power of the internet. Traditional power structures are being turned upside down and the former power holders can’t handle it. This is why, especially in the legal community, it pays to be nice. Listen to your mothers.

Flag this comment

14.

Reggie
Nov 6, 2009 7:44 AM CST

A light bilb burns WAY less energy! Don’t worry, Edward Heyburn, your practice will do fine.  Those critical of you here are simply the silver-spoon-fed creatures who—probably because Daddy owned the firm—never had to deal with being an associate like most of us did.

Flag this comment

15.

Rob
Nov 6, 2009 8:18 AM CST

I can certainly understand the desire to create such a blog but I am somewhat surprised that this desire still exists 5 years after being fired.  While I could care less about the firm I think Heyburn would be better off letting whatever hostility he has go and work on his own practice at this point but I wish him luck.

Flag this comment

16.

B. McLeod
Nov 6, 2009 8:26 AM CST

I remember back when the Dilbert strip first started.  It was awful, and the reviews were awful.  Just in the nick of time, Scott Adams changed the focus to bagging on the corporate workplace (based on his experience as Pacific Bell) and the strip took off.  At some point, everyone who is not solely self-employed (and maybe even some of them) will have had a job where there were some talentless cogs in the wheel.  It is a vast common experience, and yes, tapping into it will get you circulation.

Flag this comment

17.

Bill Lee
Nov 6, 2009 8:47 AM CST

I can’t even remember 2004 ... this guy is still milking that experience for all I guess it was not worth?

Flag this comment

18.

Carol
Nov 6, 2009 9:36 AM CST

Good for Mr. Heyburn. After being terminated from my job in February for the lame excuse of “the insurance company isn’t paying the bills anymore,” I understand his desire for retribution. Especially all the sleezy, unethical things that lawyers do and then pretend they’re holier than thou.

Flag this comment

19.

JK
Nov 6, 2009 10:07 AM CST

Anything that rips the veneer off the artificial superiority barriers lawyers are taught in firstyear law school - i.e., you are entering a profession that separates you from the rest of the mucks in our culture - is very positive.  This type of speech, even if five years after the fact, resonates more now than ever given how many lawyers are being laid off.  I say go forth and conquer!

Flag this comment

20.

Jeffrey A. Schwartz
Nov 6, 2009 10:17 AM CST

<<<Lawyers have duties to former as well as present clients, and they are officers of the court.  They have to give up the idea that they have absolutely free speech. They don’t.  Their responsibilities to their clients and to the integrity of the judicial system puts limits on their speech.>>>

On the contrary, lawyers (and the rest of the legal profession) have to get used to the idea that lawyers do have, and have always had, the same freedom of speech as the rest of society. There is no integrity in an institution that puts the perpetration of the system above justice and the needs of the people that use the system. In addition, the whole “officers of the court” idea is preposterous. Lawyers are hired guns who have created a code of “ethics” that permits them to say more outrageous things in court than any layperson would ever say in regular company. Basically, if a lawyer can make a statement without breaking into peals of laughter, or having rivers of sweat run down his face, it’s deemed not to breach the code.

Now whether Mr. Heyburn’s reputation will suffer with potential clients who don’t want a tell-all lawyer is another story, but it’s his problem and he seems self-aware enough to keep it there.

Flag this comment

21.

Ricardo
Nov 6, 2009 11:41 AM CST

Good show.  I used to work for a nut job who during conference calls, would put the phone on mute and start yelling and swearing at his clients who were on the other line(s).  Then, when he unmuted the phone his voice would be over the top cheesy “professional” in tone and word structure.  Let’s not get into his ethics now but it was not my cup of tea. It was so bad that many associates completely quit practicing law after that experience.  Maybe I should start a blog too?

Flag this comment

22.

Doug
Nov 6, 2009 3:04 PM CST

2004—five years ago—he really carries a grudge

Flag this comment

23.

JOHN
Nov 6, 2009 3:26 PM CST

I always treat people who worked for me kindly, for I was always secretly worried about what they would do otherwide, and because it is the right thing to do. Tolerance, above all tolerance.

Flag this comment

24.

R
Nov 6, 2009 4:22 PM CST

All he needs to do is change “Levinson Axelrod” to “Dunder Mifflin.”

Flag this comment

25.

JN
Nov 6, 2009 4:25 PM CST

To B. McLeod @ 16:

Re your comment that “at some point, everyone who is not solely self-employed (and maybe even some of them) will have had a job where there were some talentless cogs in the wheel.”

Unless by your comment on the “self-employed” you are referring to someone who runs a business with employees (aka an “employer”), anyone who is “solely self-employed” and has a “talentless cog in the wheel” has only place to look for the “talentless cog.”

This is why I enjoy being self-employed; when something goes wrong, I know where to look.  (If the same thing keeps going wrong, then I might need to look for an “employer,” but I’m at 12+ years self-employed and counting, so I’m hopeful.)

Otherwise, I agree with your analysis.

Flag this comment

26.

B. McLeod
Nov 6, 2009 6:17 PM CST

Yes, JN, I was making allowances for the fact that some sole proprietors with no employees are also incompetent.  However, in such cases, at least they do not oppress their staff, and so, unless they also have multiple personality disorder, they do not have to worry about less-than-gruntled employees criticizing them on the Internet.

Flag this comment

27.

JN
Nov 6, 2009 6:25 PM CST

Reply to B. McLeod:

I’m not sure whether talentless and incompetent are synonymous, but its late on a Friday, so probably not worth discussing.

If you want the last word now, you can have it, unless you are really mean.  (BTW, I did not take your last comment personally, or consider it mean at all.)

Flag this comment

28.

DF Lickiss
Nov 6, 2009 7:36 PM CST

I really appreciate much of the humor I find in these comments, it really helps cut the stress of law school a bit.  Many thanks to those who make the tasteful jokes.

Flag this comment

29.

B. McLeod
Nov 7, 2009 12:47 AM CST

Heh.  I am trying to cut back on meanness in recent times.  I just had to recognize that self-employed sole proprietors also run the whole gamut from crafty to clueless.  Some of the most fun matters I ever dealt with were for sole proprietors and small partnerships.  Unfortunately, it is the nature of our business that the very best stories are among the ones that can never be told.

Flag this comment

30.

Boraxo
Nov 9, 2009 1:14 AM CST

What a stupid firm.  The best way to validate the poster is to sue him.  As truth is an absolute defense, I hope that Rule 11 sanctions are awarded against the firms lawyers.

I will never hire peole this stupid.

Flag this comment

31.

Emmett McAuliffe
Nov 9, 2009 9:48 AM CST

Who wrote the malapropism “lawyers are demigods”?  The reporter or Heyburn?

Flag this comment

32.

OyeOye
Nov 11, 2009 12:08 PM CST

I think he meant to say “lawyers are demagogues,” as “demigods” is somewhat nonsensical in this context.  Note the irony of the succeeding paragraph.

Flag this comment

33.

Veritas
Nov 11, 2009 3:14 PM CST

Is this the first such firm blog? There have been XCompanySucks blogs and websites for years and for the most part they are protected speech. I personally think it is about time associates empower themselves to speak out against the verbal abuse and mistreatment most receive from partners. I am not sure the blog will help him.  It seems a bit extreme and sloppy. I don’t think I’d hire him to be my lawyer but I am glad he’s speaking out against partners’ bad conduct and arrogance.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.