Lawyer Todd Levitt

Last year, we followed the exploits of former Oakland County lawyer Todd Levitt as he battled some really bad press generated by a CMU student who parodied Levitt's Twitter account. Levitt sued the student for defamation; that law suit was dismissed generating some press coverage in the local Morning Sun newspaper.

With his first suit dismissed, Levitt sued again, this time naming the Morning Sun, the reporter covering the story, and other individuals as defendants claiming defamation, false light, civil conspiracy, invasion of his privacy, and other torts; he is seeking a million dollars for each count of his lawsuit. When the newspaper tried to get the case dismissed, the Isabella County Circuit Court said, "no" last month and scheduled the matter for trial.

The Morning Sun has appealed the ruling, but the case is not stayed during the interlocutory appeal and could go to trial this spring.

The issue decided against the newspaper hinges on whether their reporting on Levitt, and an award that he allegedly created -Top College Lawyer- and bestowed on himself, was materially false, or whether the "gist" or "sting" of their report was true. When it reported on this mess, the Morning Sun headline read: "Mt. Pleasant Lawyer suing student admits to fake award, marijuana tweets".

The trial judge concluded that the headline had a significant sting for the lawyer and that he made no such admission; it was the CMU student that Levitt was suing who alleged, apparently in a court proceeding, that Levitt's award was "fake". Also, the trial judge rejected the newspaper's attempt to characterize Levitt as a "public figure", which would significantly increase the defamation plaintiff's burden of proof in presenting his case to a jury.

To establish a claim for defamation, Mr. Levitt must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

• defendants made a false or defamatory statement about him;
• defendants published the statement to a third party but did not have a privilege to do so;
• defendants are at fault to at least the degree of negligence in making the statement;
• the statement has a "sting" or a tendency to harm Levitt's reputation.

These court rulings made so far in the case bode well for Mr. Levitt, which we find refreshing over here at the Law Blogger. Defamation is a difficult tort to prove.

Now, unless the newspaper and the other defendants want to have the merits of their conduct tested through a jury trial, a settlement is the only other way out.  We will continue to monitor the case and post the result.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Post #515

Attorney Todd Levitt

Mt. Pleasant lawyer Todd Levitt has sued a local newspaper, a reporter, and its parent company for defamation [libel and slander], false light and other torts. The 19-page complaint, coming on the heels of the trial court's dismissal of Levitt's separate defamation suit against other defendants, contains 147 allegations spread across eleven counts.

Interestingly, the new defamation lawsuit also names the opposing counsel in the first case as well as two professors who teach in Central Michigan University's College of Business Administration.  For his part, opposing counsel has filed a grievance against Levitt.

Mr. Levitt became a plaintiff litigant when a student at CMU allegedly adopted Levitt's business and law firm persona in a fake Twitter account and began emanating a series of tweets that Levitt says were designed to defame, embarrass and harass.  This time last year, the complaint asserts, Levitt had 4500 followers [no easy feat] and was employed as an adjunct professor at CMU.

Last year, Levitt sued the CMU student but the defamation suit was tossed by the trial court and is now on appeal. We blogged about that case in this post.

Levitt has appealed the trial judge's order granting the tweeting student's motion for summary disposition on the basis that for over two months, the student's false Twitter persona gave no indication whatsoever that it was a parody and that the student intended to cause harm to Levitt's law practice through his micro-blog posts.

In the new case, Levitt is claiming that the local newspaper, Mt. Pleasant's Morning Sun, along with one of its reporters and the parent company, tortiously covered his battle with the Tweeting CMU student by intentionally [or recklessly] making misrepresentations about Levitt. Specifically, the complaint attacks one front-page headline that trumpets that Levitt made up a false award -Top College Lawyer- in order to enhance his electronic profile.

There are many many other examples set forth in the complaint. Fellow CMU business professors and adjunct instructors have a separate set of allegations reserved for their purported misdeeds.

We shall see where all of this goes; what a messy brawl.  If Levitt prevails in his tort case, it will definitely establish limits to what can be posted about a business on social media.

Meanwhile, Scribd, Volokh Conspiracy via the Washington Post, the ABA Journal, and even named defendant Morning Sun have all started following and reporting on this dispute as it involves the juicy intersection between social media and defamation. So stay tuned for updates and analysis as this case unfolds over the next few years.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Levitt: self-described "bad ass" attorney.

In charge of our law firm's marketing efforts over the past decade, it was with professional interest and some amusement that I monitored the seemingly coordinated if irreverent campaigns of fellow attorney Todd Levitt.

Originally from Oakland County, Todd moved to his beloved Mt. Pleasant and developed a great gig over the past few years by becoming the "go to" lawyer for Central Michigan University students charged with drug and alcohol crimes.

Promoting himself as a middle-aged snowboard-riding nutty adjunct professor, and Saul Goldberg-style lawyer, Todd sure looked like he was having fun in and around the haunts of his alma mater. About a year ago, just as he was taking his game to the next level with a self-crafted lawyer reality tv show, "In Todd We Trust", he suffered a backlash from within the heart of the campus he calls home.

Apparently, homie's antics caught the attention [and ire] of a fellow CMU professor whose son, a student at the university, had the technological chops to develop a mock twitter account called Todd Levitt 2.0.  Todd did not like being the subject of satire and a brawl broke out in the twittersphere.

Then Levitt sued in the Isabella County Circuit Court on theories of  defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with a business relationship; all standard tort theories designed to cover such a mess.  A few weeks ago, the circuit court ruled against Levitt, finding that the CMU student's parody Twitter account of the lawyer was speech protected by the First Amendment.

We here at the Law Blogger agree wholeheartedly with this result.  As a self-promoter of the first order, Todd became a public figure around CMU over these past several years.  The court correctly held that statements made about such a figure, even if untrue, are nevertheless protected by the cloak of "parody" and satire.

Seeing opportunity within his defamation case, Levitt has apparently vowed to appeal what he sees as, "a case of first impression that needs to go to a higher court."  Well, as every litigant has a right to appeal the final order of a trial court, we wish him the best of luck with all that.

As a barometer of local public opinion regarding our colleague, take a look at these 17 comments posted to CMU's announcement about his reality tv show.

Like any self-respecting self-promoting lawyer, this guy is not giving up; this guy is not going away [see the post script, below]. That is what still remains great about our free society.

We predict, however, that the Isabella County Circuit Court's order granting the defendant-student's motion for summary disposition will be affirmed on appeal.  So Todd, we have to ask you about the old Hollywood adage: is there no such thing as bad publicity?

04/03/2015 Post Script:

We have received some additional information from Mr. Levitt regarding his law suit and have adjusted our view of his chances and his characterization of the defamation case as one of first impression.  According to Mr. Levitt, the n'er-do-wells that parodied his twitter site did so for two months without any indication whatsoever that the site was a parody.

Todd says it was a 100% identify theft situation  -not to rip him off financially- but to embarrass and harass him and his family.  Identity theft in the social media context.

If he offered some proof of that dynamic in the circuit court, that changes the playing field and we agree with him that the Court of Appeals will take, or should take, a close hard look.

Here's another thing we've come to recognize about Todd's case: we sure would not want this to happen to us and if it did, we'd sue too.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com