A Tigard lawyer who publishes complaints to the Oregon State Bar on the web faces a lawsuit by a Eugene lawyer claiming libel.
Former Rogue of the Week Daniel Bernath (pictured above) keeps a website where he claims to publish all complaints against Oregon lawyers submitted to the bar. Toward the bottom of that web page is the following statement:
“Michael Vergamini This Oregon lawyer committed malpractice.”
A link after that statement goes to a separate page that appears to reprint the text of a bar complaint against Vergamini brought by client Christopher Wood. The complaint claims Vergamini ignored a witness subpoena to appear in court. Bar spokeswoman Kateri Walsh says the bar is still investigating the complaint.
On June 25, Vergamini sued Bernath in Multnomah County Circuit Court for $175,000. Vergamini claims Bernath committed libel by publishing a false statement that Vergamini committed malpractice. The lawsuit notes that Bernath’s website yields search engine results saying “Michael Vergamini committed malpractice.”
Bernath has an interesting back story. He was denied membership by the Oregon State Bar in 1998 for “lack of good moral character.” The decision pointed to Bernath’s one-year suspension from the California Bar in 1995 for failure to pay child support and cashing a client’s settlement check without her permission. Bernath, according to the decision, also failed to report a $34,000 judgment against him for malicious prosecution and destroyed all his case files from California when he moved to Oregon in the late 1990s.
Despite not being a member of the Oregon bar, Bernath represents clients here trying to claim payments from the Social Security Administration, which allows anyone to represent clients in its courts.
Reached by WW for comment on the lawsuit against him, Bernath was still smarting from his Rogue of the Week moment in 2005.
“Are you gonna be a little whore of a journalist too, or are you gonna be fair?” he asked this reporter.
On the lawsuit, Bernath repeated his claim that Vergamini “committed malpractice,” citing the bar complaint.
“He says he didn’t commit malpractice. That’s something for the Oregon State Bar to determine, and others,” Bernath said. “All I’ve done is publish the official complaint that some citizen made against him.”
CLARIFICATION: While Bernath is not a member of the Oregon bar, he is a member of the California bar.
Read about more Juicy Suits here.
- JUICY SUITS: Lawyer v. Lawyer in Courtroom Grudge Match When two
- JUICY SUITS: Suspended Lawyer Knappenberger Sues Six of His Own Clients in One Day Lawyers h
- JUICY SUITS: BridgePort Busboy Claims Sexual Harassment A former
- JUICY SUITS: An Ass-Beating at Shanghai Tunnel? In the la
- JUICY SUITS: Police Brutality Alleged at Traffic Stop A Northea
Among other things, your article is false when it says “despite being a member of the bar”. I told you and it is apparent from your research that I am a member of the California Bar and the United States Supreme Court Bar. Please correct this immmediately. I will send you a letter by certified mail if you require that as per Oregon law.
You misquoted me. I have no opinion as to whether any lawyer has committed malpractice or not. Any complaint against any lawyer will either be dismissed or prosecuted. I did not say that anyone committed malpractice. Do you have a tape recording of our conversation? Please play to me anything in this regard or change your article pursuant to Oregon law.
Go get them Dan.
Attention to detail is important in journalism.
Cheers.
Attention to detail is important, especially when he misquotes his own claimed inaccuracies “despite being a member of the bar.”
To: Willamette Week Publisher
Greetings:
An article in your publication mentions me. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 30.150-30.175 et seq, among others I state the following and demand a retraction and correction.
“Despite not being a member of the bar”
Truth: I am a member of the California Bar for nearly 25 years and of the United States Supreme Court bar for nearly 20 years. I told your reporter that I practice law in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming and I am licensed to practice law.
You may contact the United States Supreme Court and the California Bar to verify this as per the statute.
Your publication says;
“on the lawsuit, Bernath repeated his claim that Vergamini ‘committed malpractice’ citing the bar complaint.”
Truth: I have never stated at any time that Vergamini has committed malpractice. I published an official complaint to the Oregon State Bar and never “repeated” something I never said even once.
Again, the above statements are false and defamatory as to me. Pursuant to the requirement of the ORS: Demand is hereby made that a retraction and/or correction be made pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes compliant with the above facts, you publish the retraction as prominently as the defamation, you state that the statements are not factually supported and that you regret your error.
Respectfully,
Daniel A. Bernath
Daniel A. Bernath
Where does the right to freedom of sppech intersect with libel law?
Any legal experts care to weigh in for those of us who didn’t go to law school?
Wow, that statute was renumbered all the way back in 2003. Maybe time to invest in a new statute book?
freedom of speech asked for a legal analysis; I have a doctorate in jurisprudence, earned 25 years ago. Please read Ramstead v. Morgan 219 Or 383, 347 P2d 594, 598 (1959)
They say a man’s website is the mirror image of his soul.
Well, no one ever said that, but my point is that guy’s website is fantastically awful.
I, too, am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Big deal. Nearly every attorney not currently in prison is eligible for admission.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/baradmissions.html
[...] internet libel suits keep on coming — this time against an anonymous commenter who pissed off an Oregon [...]
The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a photograph, a number, a file, or a website (for example via a cease-and-desist letter). Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.
The effect is related to John Gilmore’s observation that “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”.
(From Wikipedia)