State Supreme Court Rules Against Collector-Bashing Lawyer

There’s only so much protection in having John Travolta play you in a movie.  After that, you have to hope you have a legal leg to stand on when you start bad-mouthing companies in print and on the Internet.

Take, for instance, Attorney Jan Schlichtmann.  Mr. Schlichtmann recently received a resounding blow to the ego by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled against the Boston attorney for publishing allegedly defamatory statements against a business — specifically, a collection agency.

The business in question is the Cadle Company.  In the early ‘90s, Schlichtmann and his former law firm borrowed money from the Boston Trade Bank.  Things went poorly for the bank, it went under, and Cadle Company purchased, among others,  Schlichtmann’s debt from the FDIC.

Schlichtmann went on to file Chapter 7, and was issued a discharge of debtor.  What remains in question, and one of the reasons for the Schlichtmann bad-mouthing of Cadle Company, is whether certain of Schlichtmann’s debts – specifically, the debts Cadle Company would like to collect on – survived the discharge.

Schlichtmann says  no.  Cadle says yes.  Will these two ever find love in the big city?

Probably not.

Schlichtmann started a web site and began speaking out to the media, who is always ready to quote a man played by John Travolta in a movie, about how awful the Cadle Company was.  Daniel Cadle wrote Schlichtmann, advising that the information on his website was false and requesting that he correct any "exaggerations, false statements and plain old bold-face lies."

Schlichtmann said no.  He also tried to hide behind an anti-SLAPP statute.  SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, "effectively shields one party in an ongoing legal dispute from liability for the publication of allegedly defamatory statements concerning the opposing party," wrote Justice John Greaney.  However, the justices also agreed that Schlichtmann didn’t get to use SLAPP as a defense.  The Court determined that it only applied when the actions complained of are merely petitioning ones.

The case will be remanded to Superior Court. None of the other Supreme Court Justices dissented.