District
Court of Appeal of The State Of Florida Fourth District, on January 6, while deciding the appeal No. 4d14-3231,
titled Copia Blake And Peter Birzon,
Appellants, V. Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A.,
And Ann-Marie Giustibelli, Individually,
Appellees , affirmed and upheld, with a remarkable opinion, the award of
punitive damages of $350,000 awarded by the trial court, the Circuit Court for
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, to the Appellee Ann-Marie Giustibelli
Facts:
Attorney
Giustibelli represented her client Copia Blake against her husband Peter Birzon
in a dissolution of marriage proceeding . This Attorney Client relationship
between Giustibelli and her client Blake was broken after some time and after this breakdown the Client Blake and oddly, Birzon (her
husband) as well, took to the internet to post defamatory reviews of
Giustibelli.
On
this act of her client Blake the
Attorney Giustibelli brought a suit, pleading a count for libel. She also
brought counts for breach of contract and for attorney’s fees, alleging that
Blake still owed her money related to the divorce representation.
As
mentioned in this judgment Blake’s and Birzon’s posted internet reviews
contained the following statements:
This
lawyer represented me in my divorce. She was combative and explosive and took
my divorce to a level of anger which caused major suffering of my minor
children. She insisted I was an emotionally abused wife who couldn’t make
rational decisions which caused my case to drag on in the system for a year and
a half so her FEES would continue to multiply!! She misrepresented her fees
with regards to the contract I initially signed. The contract she submitted to
the courts for her fees were 4 times her original quote and pages of the
original had been exchanged to support her claims, only the signature page was
the same. Shame on me that I did not have an original copy, but like an idiot .
. . I trusted my lawyer. Don’t mistake sincerity for honesty because I assure
you, that in this attorney’s case, they are NOT the same thing. She absolutely
perpetuates the horrible image of attorneys who are only out for the money and
themselves. Although I know this isn’t the case and there are some very good
honest lawyers out there, Mrs. Giustibelli is simply not one of the “good
ones[.]” Horrible horrible experience. Use anyone else, it would have to be a
better result.
**********
No
integrity. Will say one thing and do another. Her fees outweigh the truth.
Altered her charges to 4 times the original quote with no explanation. Do not
use her. Don’t mistake sincerity for honesty. In her case, they’re not at all
the same. Will literally lie to your face if it means more money for her. Get
someone else. . . . Anyone else would do a superior effort for you.
**********
I
accepted an initial VERY fair offer from my ex. Mrs. Giustibelli convinced me
to “crush” him and that I could have permanent etc. Spent over a year (and 4
times her original estimate) to arrive at the same place we started at. Caused
unnecessary chaos and fear with my kids, convinced me that my ex cheated (which
he didn’t), that he was hiding money (which he wasn’t), and was mad at ME when
I realized her fee circus had gone on long enough and finally said “stop[.]”
Altered her fee structures, actually replaced original documents with others to
support her charges and generally gave the kind of poor service you only hear
about. I’m not a disgruntled ex-wife. I’m just the foolish person who believes
that a person’s word should be backed by integrity. Not even remotely true in
this case. I’ve had 2 prior attorneys and never ever have I seen ego and monies
be so blatantly out of control.
Both
Blake and Birzon admitted to posting the reviews on various internet sites. The
evidence showed that Blake had agreed to pay her attorney the amount reflected
on the written retainer agreement—$300 an hour. Blake and Birzon both admitted
at trial that Giustibelli had not charged Blake four times more than what was quoted
in the agreement.
Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County heard and decided
this Case No. 12-22244 (12). After a
non-jury trial, the trial court awarded the appellee, attorney Ann-Marie
Giustibelli, damages in this libel and breach of contract case. The court
entered judgment in favor of Giustibelli and awarded punitive damages of
$350,000.
At
this the Copia Blake and Peter Birzon filed an appeal before the District Court
Of Appeal Of The State Of Florida Fourth District in which Copia Blake, Kansas
City, MO, and Peter Birzon, Weston, represented
pro se and Ann-Marie Giustibelli, Plantation, for Appellees.
After
briefs were filed Birzon filed a notice
that he and the Appellee had settled the matter and that he was withdrawing his
appeal. Blake did not join in the notice. The court observed about this as:
“
We note that even if she had, we would not have dismissed the appeal.”
The
appellate court was very well aware of and understand the importance of this
issue in the legal profession. The court observed:
“
One issue Blake and Birzon raised involves the application of free speech
protections to reviews of professional services posted on the internet. We
affirm in all respects, but this issue merits discussion as it presents a
scenario that will likely recur, and the public will benefit from an opinion on
the matter.”
Few quotes from this judgment:
“Both
Blake and Birzon admitted to posting the reviews on various internet sites. The
evidence showed that Blake had agreed to pay her attorney the amount reflected
on the written retainer agreement—$300 an hour. Blake and Birzon both admitted
at trial that Giustibelli had not charged Blake four times more than what was
quoted in the agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of Giustibelli and
awarded punitive damages of $350,000.”
“On
appeal, Blake and Birzon argue that their internet reviews constituted
statements of opinion and thus were protected by the First Amendment and not
actionable as defamation. We disagree. “[A]n action for libel will lie for a
‘false and unprivileged publication by letter, or otherwise, which exposes a
person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or which causes such
person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such person in [their]
office, occupation, business or employment.”
“Here,
all the reviews contained allegations that Giustibelli lied to Blake regarding
the attorney’s fee. Two of the reviews contained the allegation that
Giustibelli falsified a contract. These are factual allegations, and the
evidence showed they were false”
Note:
Statutory
laws of Florida is currently codified in 48 titles. Chapter 836 of Title XLVI
deals with Defamation; Libel; Threatening Letters And Similar Offenses. This
chapter defines Libel as:
“836.02 Must
give name of the party written about.—
(1) No
person shall print, write, publish, circulate or distribute within this state
any newspaper, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, or other publication of any
character, either written or printed, wherein the alleged immoral acts of any
person are stated or pretended to be stated, or wherein it is intimated that
any person has been guilty of any immorality, unless such written or printed
publication shall in such article publish in full the true name of the person
intended to be charged with the commission of such acts of immorality.”
Link:
The
full judgement Copia Blake and Peter Birzon v.AnnMarie Giustibelli,
P.A., and AnnMarie Giustibelli,individually may be found at the below
link:
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Jan.%202016/01-06-16/4D14-3231.op.pdf
The
writer is the Managing Partner Intellectual property Logium.
www.iplogium.com
No comments:
Post a Comment